Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited to the United States, Subject to Judicial Review | Hacker News Reader

Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited to the United States, Subject to Judicial Review

torrentfreak.com

125 pointsredm28 comments

I can’t wait to hear why this is different from China enforcing their new national security law against people who haven’t set foot in their country.

A possible reason is that it went through (or is going through) the sovereign courts of New Zealand. Another reason would be that Kim committed his for profit crimes virtually in the US even if he was physically in New Zealand. That is, he was knowingly selling access to copyrighted content to American consumers, with American employees, from American servers. Also, as I understand it China's law applies broadly to a class of people (i.e Hong Kongers) whereas Kim's case is a specific legal ruling for a specific criminal.

There's also a lot of treaties about the reciprocity of copyright. Without that, copyright can be pretty useless.

Was it registered in US? Even if it was there are so many heads of corporations unpunished today just because you can't sentence a company to prison, they want to make an example out of him. So how corrupt is the system? America World Police strikes again.

I don't really have much sympathy for people whose business model is "I'm going to sell copyrighted movies and TV shows for my own profit without compensating the creators in any way."

Surely there are complicated legal questions at issue, which is why this has taken so long - but ultimately I think criminal charges against blatant for profit infringement are just.

You re so naive

Simple - China installed this law to punish serious crimes, e.g. the Hong Kong guy who murdered his gf in Taiwan, but could not be extradited to Taiwan and remains unpunished.

Dotcom allowed people 10 years ago to download movies in shitty quality from his website and made some cash from that. This is why he must be punished very hard and extradited to the US from no matter where he is on this planet.

But what about Julian Assange or Meng Wanzhou, surely they committed grave acts against the American people right?

Illegal acts against American government, maybe, not people.

I know a few who commit grave acts against American people and get paid for it with no legal repercussions.

You are thinking about the abandoned Extradition Bill. The National Security Law includes the ability to extradite people but only for promoting succession, spreading certain views and talking about certain things.

The guy who murdered his GF in Taiwan can't be extradited to Taiwan under the NSL.

It's a law against questioning the absolute rule of the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. It has nothing to do with extradition

The law you are confusing this with was a different extradited law where the communist party wanting to extradite Hong Kong residence to mainland China where torture and slavery for political enemies of the Chinese Communist Party are completely uninhibited. And maybe the CCP would send a murderer to their enermy the Republic of China, or that was irrelevant.

We don't have an extradition treaty with China and we suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong because we don't trust the CCP, while we still have an extradition treaty with the USA, so that's one difference.

Another difference: NZ won't extradite people unless the crime they're accused of is a crime in New Zealand and there's a plausible case against them. So, even if we had a treaty we wouldn't extradite people to China for sedition against the CCP because that's not a crime under NZ law.

> So, even if we had a treaty we wouldn't extradite people to China for sedition against the CCP because that's not a crime under NZ law.

So it's not a crime to call for a putsch against the NZ government? I'd be surprised if that were the case. It's a matter of framing things.

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/New_Zealand_repeals_sedition_la...

Of course, even if we did have a sedition law making it illegal to call for a putsch against the NZ government, that wouldn't make it illegal to call for the overthrow of the CCP, so the latter still wouldn't be extraditable.

Ability to ignore one's own hypocrisy is the main manifestation of power. Rules for thee but not for me.

“However, any extradition would only take place on copyright grounds since the Supreme Court has ruled that the men are not eligible to be surrendered in respect of money laundering since there is “no matching New Zealand offense.”

This part always confuses me, US still can charge him for money laundering after he is In US right?

My understanding is that "We will extradite him on the grounds of copyright, but you cannot charge him for money laundering."

If they were to then charge him for money laundering, then it would mean NZ has 0 trust that any extradition to the US would be honored and future extraditions would be evermore increasingly difficult.

But at the end of the day, who knows. It's the US, they do what they want.

> If they were to then charge him for money laundering, then it would mean NZ has 0 trust that any extradition to the US would be honored and future extraditions would be evermore increasingly difficult.

One of the more interesting points with the recent Assange trial, was the evidence presented (by the defence) of the US breaking it's previous commitments to the UK government for treatment of extradited prisoners.

(From memory) apparently other high profile extraditions have only been allowed with certain attached conditions. For example "must be supplied with their medical (diabetes or something like that?) medication", which once extradited were completely ignored.

It sounded like there were several conditions attached to these previous extraditions, and all the conditions have been outright ignored.

So, the trust thing you mention should (in theory) already be on shaky ground.

Why was Megaupload not subject to DMCA safe harbour in the same way Youtube, etc, are?

Because they didn't accept/handle DMCA requests?

They did handle DMCA requests. The main complaint there is that they only deleted the copies listed in the takedown, and left other copies alone.

Didn't they already take all of his possessions? Isn't it time to let him be?

So let's get real. Which gatekeepers and entrenched players did he rub the wrong way?

Honestly, the perseverance in persecuting him is impressive.

What did he do?

He pissed off the copyright and entertainment lobbies. He flaunted the wealth he gained from a website that was commonly used to share pirated content.

The MPAA, RIAA and media companies all have friends in high places. Any large player not willing to play ball with the demands from the media industry can count on legal action against them at some point. If Youtube didn't have their content ID system, they would've been raided by the FBI long ago.

I think if he had quietly disappeared it would be forgotten about, but he seems to crave the attention the case brings. From the dramatic retelling of "The Raid" on his website, to his bizarre coded messages hinting about Mega being stolen from him, to regularly hinting at reviving the service that the case revolves around, to setting up Mega.nz to his brash music videos and books, he has made himself very hard to ignore.

Ridiculous

And the saga continues

Reply on news.ycombinator.com