Kim Dotcom Loses Appeal Concerning Extradition

from the it's-going-to-happen-eventually dept

To date, Kim Dotcom has been having a long string of victories in court in his ongoing battle with the US concerning their attempt to extradite him and try him in the US for creating and running Megaupload. One of the big victories was the district court ruling that the FBI needed to reveal its evidence against Dotcom as a part of the extradition procedure. The US DOJ had been arguing that the evidence only matters for the US trial, and that New Zealand should effectively rubberstamp the extradition. Eventually, you knew there had to be some setbacks in Dotcom’s case, and now an appeals court has overturned that earlier ruling, and said that the FBI does not need to reveal its evidence.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal says extradition hearings are not criminal trials and that the judge deciding whether to order extradition has only to be satisfied there is a case to answer.

The court said the US government had a duty of “candour and good faith” in making an extradition bid, but a summary of the evidence held would suffice.

Dotcom has made it clear that he’s going to appeal this to the Supreme Court, so there’s still the possibility of at least one more level of review before this is over. I’m sure there are specific reasons for today’s ruling, but I have to admit it does seem odd that you can pull someone out of their home country and take them across an ocean without having to actually prove you have an actual case first. The idea that the US government is doing any of this in “good faith” seems like an assumption that isn’t particularly supportable in reality.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Kim Dotcom Loses Appeal Concerning Extradition”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
105 Comments
Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“You Techdirt pirates are particularly fond of censoring this week.

Good to know that your response to truth is censorship.

Pirates love to censor!”

The right to free speech does not literally mean you have the right to say whatever the heck you want…It only means you have a right to state your opinions or emotions or thoughts in a communicably reasonable manner.

In which case I see no real form of relevant communication out of you. You are only trolling. Therefor, you get censored because it reminds people not to feed you the attention you seek.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Good to know that your response to truth is censorship.

There’s no censorship going on. But even besides that, it’s not a response to truth. It’s a response to belligerence and idiocy.

If you have truth to speak, you can say it here and the comment won’t get hidden if you manage to say it without padding it out with lies and insults (like “you all love piracy” as an example.)

Anonymous Coward says:

The idea that the US government is doing any of this in “good faith” seems like an assumption that isn’t particularly supportable in reality.

LOL! It’s amazing how dumb your arguments are at times. Of course you think the U.S. is acting in bad faith. And, of course, you’re on Dotcom’s side. I’m glad you’re finally being somewhat honest about how you feel. It’s OK to come out of the pirate closet. I’ve been telling you this for years. I’ll actually respect you a lot more when you stop pretending like you’re anti-piracy. You clearly aren’t.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I don’t think he’s particularly looking for your respect.

Illegal warrants, taking information out of country that they weren’t supposed to have, overblown raids, none of this says “good faith”.

Regardless of how you feel about piracy, or about Kim, this case is a disaster.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Mike Masnick and the rest of the pirates here are also very fond of censoring speech they don’t agree with. Just look around.

The ISPS, the content holders and the lawmakers need to keep this in mind when considering whether or not there should be even harsher punishments for these types of people.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sorry, but the point stands. Mike Masnick obviously feels some serious shame about what he does, as he refuses to be honest about his piracy cheerleading.

He’s slowly coming out of his shell. We ALL know what he really believes. It’s sad that he feels the need to hide it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Regardless of how you feel about piracy, or about Kim, this case is a disaster.

Servers seized? Check.
Assets seized? Check.
Domain name seized? Check.
Indictment by grand jury? Check.
Principals arrested? Check.
Extradition in the works? Check.
Megaupload shut down? Check.

Where’s the disaster? ROFLMAO! You guys are hilarious.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Servers seized? Check.
Assets seized? Check.
Domain name seized? Check.
Indictment by grand jury? Check.
Principals arrested? Check.
Extradition in the works? Check.
Megaupload shut down? Check.

Done prior to a conviction? Check.
Done prior to the defendant even having a chance to defend himself? Check.
Seizures result in tons of legal material being taken out of circulation? Check.
Seizures later found to be illegal? Check.
Government calls for destruction of evidence? Check.

This is a total disaster. Not for Megaupload, but for the idea of justice.

PRMan (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It’s a total disaster because all that was done to an innocent man. How do I know he’s innocent? Because he hasn’t been proven guilty yet.

If he and his co-workers uploaded materials and made them available to others, then fine, he’s guilty (still seems disproportionate to shut down a billion dollar business for the sake of $20), but if they just set up file lockers, then it’s a travesty beyond words.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Done prior to a conviction? Check.

Yes, Karl, that’s how seizures work.

Done prior to the defendant even having a chance to defend himself? Check.

Ditto. He’s being treated the same as any other alleged criminal.

Seizures result in tons of legal material being taken out of circulation? Check.

Yep. No doubt. So what?

Seizures later found to be illegal? Check.

Huh? What seizures done by the U.S. were illegal?

Government calls for destruction of evidence? Check.

What evidence was destroyed.

This is a total disaster. Not for Megaupload, but for the idea of justice.

The disaster of justice was caused by Dotcom et al. What you’re seeing now is justice for his victims.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The raid, search and seizure on Dotcom’s property was ruled illegal by the NZ court. The taking of the illegally obtained evidence and sending it to the US was ruled illegal by the NZ court. The NZ court has ruled that this illegally obtained evidence must be returned by the US but the US has refused to comply. If the US doesn’t return the illegally obtained evidence as per ruled by the NZ court then the NZ court is well within their rights to refuse the extradition on the basis that the US is refusing to comply and is contempt of the NZ court ruling.

If the US cannot respect and comply with both NZ legal and extradition process then the US will only have themselves that extradition is refused. How can Dotcom get a fair trial in the US when the US doesn’t comply and respect NZ legal system and extradition process.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“All of the evidence collected by the U.S is legal.”

Except the bit where it was removed from the country against the express instructions of the judge.

“The NZ stuff doesn’t matter to the U.S. prosecution.”

It matters if they want a successful extradition. Keep breaking NZ law and that’ll become a long shot.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Yes, Karl, that’s how seizures work.

It’s not, and you know it. Seizures are generally done to prevent evidence from being moved or destroyed, not to destroy a business entirely based upon mere allegations. And they are usually done only when the moving party can show that lesser methods would be unsuccessful.

Yep. No doubt. So what?

So, they seized lots of material owned by innocent third parties that is not even allegedly involved in the “crime.” Moreover, all of that material is protected by the First Amendment. That’s a legal no-no.

This is completely unjust. This injustice far, far outweighs any damage to the public done by Megaupload, even if Megaupload is guilty. If the courts allow it, then the courts are unjust; and if you approve of it, then you are unjust.

Huh? What seizures done by the U.S. were illegal?

Justice Helen Winkelmann said the warrants used when more than 90 New Zealand officers stormed the Megaupload founder’s home and other properties in January were too broadly cast, “lacking adequate specificity as to the offence”.

“The search and seizure was therefore illegal,” she ruled, adding that it was “clear that the police, in executing the warrants, have exceeded what they could lawfully be authorised to do.”

  • Kim Dotcom judge rules mansion raid was illegal

    I didn’t specify that the seizures were “done by the U.S.,” but there’s no question that the U.S. government was behind the New Zealand raid. The raid was done at the request of the U.S. government, on warrants issued solely from evidence presented by the U.S. government, and was coordinated by the F.B.I. (they were even watching on a live feed).

    What evidence was destroyed.

    I didn’t say it was destroyed, I said the government “called for” it to be destroyed. Which they did, and still are:
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120406/12172918409/megaupload-points-out-that-feds-want-to-destroy-relevant-evidence-its-case.shtml

    The disaster of justice was caused by Dotcom et al. What you’re seeing now is justice for his victims.

    I know you like to appeal to emotion with words like “victims,” but it just ain’t so. Unless (and until) it can be shown that the complainants were actually harmed by the defendants, they’re not victims.

    And if the defendant did not harm the complainant, but is still punished or harmed by the court, then it is a “disaster of justice.” If the defendant’s punishment is out of proportion to the actual harm done, then it is a “disaster of justice.” If government misconduct is allowed during the case, then it is a “disaster of justice” – even if the defendant is guilty.

    In the first two cases, the defendant is a victim. In the last case, we are all victims.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Government calls for destruction of evidence? Check.”

“What evidence was destroyed.”

If you read the quote inatread of cutting-and-pasting it, boy, you’d see “…CALLS for destruction of evidence.”
Learn to read, kid, take a course on debating, then we’ll talk.

Dave says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I see – despite the fact that most of the actions (if not ALL) on that little list were done illegally, they ALL still apply, do they? What total twaddle. You don’t seem to realise that if the so-called authorities are allowed to run rough-shod in this case, it sets a very dangerous precedent and will make them think they can do it again just for things they don’t like. You, presumably, abide by the laws of the land? You would be extremely put out, to put it mildly if you were dragged from your home, sentenced and clapped in jail for some alleged “crime” that you weren’t allowed to defend. Posts by this OOTB ignoramus are obviously bait and have the troll designer label.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You could have posted that in your first comment as to spare us from clicking report twice eh? Go take a deep breath and come back when you are willing to contribute with the discussion. There have been several articles about this case now and it is CLEAR that the US are up to no good. Kim would not have scored any victories if there was no doubts lingering. You could AT LEAST recognize that. But we know you won’t.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Masnick is getting sloppy:

it does seem odd that you can pull someone out of their home country and take them across an ocean without having to actually prove you have an actual case first.

Except they did prove they had a case:

“The court said… a summary of the evidence held would suffice.”

We’ll just write it off as Masnick being tired from all the piracy defending he’s been doing this week.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is merely one courts opinions, the decision on the matter is not settled until all relevant jurisdictions have had a say. It is of course up to the parties involved to push to the next court but considering this is going to appeal you can hardly look at a single ruling in a multi-review case/trail and say “that it! we are done here!” just because you liked what that particular ruling said.

You are putting the cart before the horse here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Even if the Supreme Court sides with the Appeal Court ruling the US still have to show in the extradition hearing that extradition is warranted. Also the Judge overseeing the extradition hearing could also ask for further disclosure of evidence from the US to be given even if the Appeal Court ruling stands. So the US could still have to give fuller disclosure of evidence of its case against Megaupload.

Since the NZ court has already ruled that the raid, search and seizure of property from Dotcom’s home was illegal and that the removal of the evidence from Dotcom’s home and sent to the US was also illegal the extradition request could well still be refused. The US was told to return the evidence that was illegally obtained and sent to them that was taken from the illegal raid and if the US refuses to comply with the court ruling and return that evidence back then the NZ court are well within their rights to refuse granting the extradition on the basis that the US refuses to comply with the NZ court ruling of giving the illegal obtained evidence back as it could well show that Dotcom may not get a fair trial.

If the US want the extradition to go ahead then they will have to respect and comply with both the legal and extradition processes of NZ and if they refuse to comply on anything then they will only have themselves to blame if extradition is refused because they refuse to comply and respect both the NZ legal and extradition process.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

They did not prove anything. If I show a court a summary that you murdered someone they should NOT take that at face value and rubberstamp an extradition process against you. You know because the evidence has to be examined. I’m fairly sure China would love to accuse a lot of people of whatever to get extraditions and just present a list of evidences. But you’ll ignore the absurdity of the fact regardless of… well, the fact thrown at your face.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Yes and I agree to what you say that they did not prove anything.

As I was stating, the Appeal Court ruling could still be overturned by the Supreme Court. Fuller disclosure of evidence could still be requested by the judge overseeing the extradition hearing. The Extradition could still be refused and could be refused on the grounds that the US refuses to comply with the previous court ruling that they must return the illegally obtained evidence that was sent to them illegally. Extradition could also be refused on the grounds that the raid, search and seizure of property from Dotcom’s home was illegal.

If the US cannot respect and comply with both the NZ legal and extradition process then they only have themselves to blame that the extradition is refused. How can Dotcom have a fair trial in the US when the US refuses to comply with the court ruling of returning evidence back that was illegally obtained and given to the US in the first place.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

This is a secondary liability case. This is like accusing a taxi driver who happened to drive a criminal somewhere where he then committed a crime. Should the driver really be accountable? Welcome to the Kim Dotcom case. Just because this is about priacy rather than a bank robbery or murder doesn’t make him guilty.

If he is guilty, then what about the ISPs that allowed the infringers online? The owners of the routers, network cabels, and satellites? Power companies that power those devices? Where does the line of liability stop?

The only evidence the US has actually come out and shown Dotcom knew about Dotcom was told to hold onto by an agent of the US government for an ongoing case. It’s sad they aren’t required to show more proof before they can shut down let alone extract him to a kangaroo court.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

This is a secondary liability case.

It’s irrelevant whether Dotcom is the primary or secondary infringer. He is liable just the same. 18 U.S.C. 2.

If he is guilty, then what about the ISPs that allowed the infringers online?

Intent is the difference. Doing something because of infringement is not the same as doing something despite it. This is basic stuff.

The only evidence the US has actually come out and shown Dotcom knew about Dotcom was told to hold onto by an agent of the US government for an ongoing case.

That’s not the only evidence.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It’s irrelevant whether Dotcom is the primary or secondary infringer. He is liable just the same. 18 U.S.C. 2.

You are implying that Microsoft is liable for infringing material that users upload regardless of them complying with DMCA notices? Because if you are then you are wrong. And that’s precisely the relation Dotcom had to the infringing material stored on megaupload.

Intent is the difference. Doing something because of infringement is not the same as doing something despite it. This is basic stuff.

And your point is? Are you saying that Kim Dotcom intended to infringe some copyright when some Average Joe decided to upload infringing content? Really? DESPITE the fact he complied with DMCA notices?

That’s not the only evidence.

Where is the rest of the evidence then?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You are implying that Microsoft is liable for infringing material that users upload regardless of them complying with DMCA notices?

I’m not implying that. In fact, I’m explicitly saying that Microsoft is not liable while Megaupload is.

And your point is? Are you saying that Kim Dotcom intended to infringe some copyright when some Average Joe decided to upload infringing content? Really? DESPITE the fact he complied with DMCA notices?

Yep. Dotcom encouraged infringement for the purpose of profiting from it. Complying with DMCA notices doesn’t change thing.

Where is the rest of the evidence then?

Some of it is in the indictment.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I’m not implying that. In fact, I’m explicitly saying that Microsoft is not liable while Megaupload is.

Wait I’ll risk your justification for that: “BECAUSE PIRATES!” right? Despite the fact that they are de same damned thing you treat them as if they were different. Please enlighten us on how they are different. I’ll help you with a few points you need to address: MS provides storage, MU does the same. MS provides ways to share what is stored, MU does the same. MS takes down shared links that rights holder request takedowns, MU DOES EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME. Except, of course, when law enforcement tells them specifically not to take any action.

Yep. Dotcom encouraged infringement for the purpose of profiting from it. Complying with DMCA notices doesn’t change thing.

Do you have citations of any instance where he explicitly said that wherever? No you don’t. As expected.

Some of it is in the indictment.

A summary of the supposed evidence is in the indictment. Not the evidence. So how can the court get to any conclusion without seeing the evidence? I’m sure you’d not mind if I accused you for murder and you got extradited to North Korea based on a summary of evidences provided by me, right?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You seem to think Law is a black and white game when it is hardly the case. The legal system is a shallow attempt to take very complex interactions and put some structure to them. If laws were easy black and white matters we would not need judges or lawyers or any of that we just need Sylvester Stallone with a hover bike and big gun.

I AM THE LAW!!

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

(b) System Caching.?
(1) Limitation on liability.? A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the intermediate and temporary storage of material on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider in a case in which?
(A) the material is made available online by a person other than the service provider;
(B) the material is transmitted from the person described in subparagraph (A) through the system or network to a person other than the person described in subparagraph (A) at the direction of that other person; and
(C) the storage is carried out through an automatic technical process for the purpose of making the material available to users of the system or network who, after the material is transmitted as described in subparagraph (B), request access to the material from the person described in subparagraph (A),
if the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) Conditions.? The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are that?
(A) the material described in paragraph (1) is transmitted to the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) without modification to its content from the manner in which the material was transmitted from the person described in paragraph (1)(A);
(B) the service provider described in paragraph (1) complies with rules concerning the refreshing, reloading, or other updating of the material when specified by the person making the material available online in accordance with a generally accepted industry standard data communications protocol for the system or network through which that person makes the material available, except that this subparagraph applies only if those rules are not used by the person described in paragraph (1)(A) to prevent or unreasonably impair the intermediate storage to which this subsection applies;
(C) the service provider does not interfere with the ability of technology associated with the material to return to the person described in paragraph (1)(A) the information that would have been available to that person if the material had been obtained by the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) directly from that person, except that this subparagraph applies only if that technology?
(i) does not significantly interfere with the performance of the provider?s system or network or with the intermediate storage of the material;
(ii) is consistent with generally accepted industry standard communications protocols; and
(iii) does not extract information from the provider?s system or network other than the information that would have been available to the person described in paragraph (1)(A) if the subsequent users had gained access to the material directly from that person;
(D) if the person described in paragraph (1)(A) has in effect a condition that a person must meet prior to having access to the material, such as a condition based on payment of a fee or provision of a password or other information, the service provider permits access to the stored material in significant part only to users of its system or network that have met those conditions and only in accordance with those conditions; and
(E) if the person described in paragraph (1)(A) makes that material available online without the authorization of the copyright owner of the material, the service provider responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), except that this subparagraph applies only if?
(i) the material has previously been removed from the originating site or access to it has been disabled, or a court has ordered that the material be removed from the originating site or that access to the material on the originating site be disabled; and
(ii) the party giving the notification includes in the notification a statement confirming that the material has been removed from the originating site or access to it has been disabled or that a court has ordered that the material be removed from the originating site or that access to the material on the originating site be disabled.
(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.?
(1) In general.? A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider?
(A)
(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
(2) Designated agent.? The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:
(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.
(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.
The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory.
(3) Elements of notification.?
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(B)
(i) Subject to clause (ii), a notification from a copyright owner or from a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.
(ii) In a case in which the notification that is provided to the service provider?s designated agent fails to comply substantially with all the provisions of subparagraph (A) but substantially complies with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (A), clause (i) of this subparagraph applies only if the service provider promptly attempts to contact the person making the notification or takes other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially complies with all the provisions of subparagraph (A).
(d) Information Location Tools.? A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider?
(1)
(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;
(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

It’s not, that’s why there are judges and juries and all that fun stuff. Unless you live in a country where the state just decides for you. Sounds to me like NZ’s legal system has it right and the US is trying to drag someone away to railroad them on the shambles of a legal system that exists in the US where favorable rulings for the government can be had for very little investment.

Anonymous Coward says:

So when the “summary of the evidence held” is next to nothing and new evidence starts popping up in the US, Kim Dotcom is out of luck huh?

This is actually a little sad as we all know that 100% of his guilty verdict is based on him getting to the US court system. After that the “we’re the US government”, “zomg piracy”, and “lawl copyright” will get any verdict necessary.

Ninja (profile) says:

There’s a lot of interests at stake, the US will not give up the fight without fully flexing its power corruption muscles. In any case, regardless of Kim losing or winning the US loses. Their bullying tactics has become very clear with this case. Not even the most conservative persons I know are buying claims from the US, I have yet to see anyone (other than our trolls and the usual maximalists in the industry) arguing that it’s fair to extradite him. Most even have trouble with why a full police force was needed against woman, children and some guy with weird tastes.

Machin Shin (profile) says:

Re: Re:

” I have yet to see anyone (other than our trolls and the usual maximalists in the industry) arguing that it’s fair to extradite him”

What I find really sad is that from what I know of Kim Dotcom, I would bet he really has broken laws he should stand accountable for.

Having said that though, I do not think he should be extradited because the DOJ can’t present a solid case and instead have botched up just about everything they could. They have used excessive force, tried to destroy evidence, and even tried preventing him from having legal counsel. So they managed to go after what should have been easy case, and managed to make Kim look like a saint next to how screwed up the DOJ is.

Wally (profile) says:

I see this as a blessing in disguise for Kim Dotcom. The good news is that this is only an extradition hearing. The DOJ cannot start prosecuting Kim Dotcom until after the extradition hearing in the US, and only if it actually passes under judicial review by the US Supreme Court. If they deny the DOJ the extradition, they will have to dismiss the case against him altogether in both countries.

out_of_the_blue says:

Dotcom didn't MAKE the millions he's got, he TAPPED

from the income streams that others created. Irrefutable evidence that he engaged in copyright infringement.

How in the world do you go on day after day for years implicitly denying WHO OWNS THE WORKS because put in the money and time, claim that copyright infringement is “sharing”, and supporting grifters getting undeserved and UNEARNED MILLIONS? Man, my jibe that you have the soul of a lawyer is actually dead accurate.

Oh, and you’ve again duplicated: “actually prove you have an actual case first.” — This and over-use of “ridiculous” MUST show some addiction, all right. You repeat hackneyed phrases like “new business model” over and again, like a mantra.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike’s “new business model” (file hosts like Megaupload) is to grift on income streams that should go to content creators — and then call the creators greedy!

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Dotcom didn't MAKE the millions he's got, he TAPPED

” he TAPPED
from the income streams that others created. “

What income streams? I admit, I used Megaupload to infringe, but by and large, the files I obtained were content not available legally anywhere outside Japan. I got anime series that will never see so much as the front door of a dub company. Hell, even the biggest anime series don’t have an income stream of any kind in Ireland (One Piece: no DVDs beyond the first couple dozen episodes, barely a couple of movies, and no digital distribution). For me to go legal, I would either have had to commit fraud and say I’m in the US for Crunchyroll or buy expensive import DVDs that don’t work on PAL systems.

So again…in what way did Megaupload take something from an income stream that didn’t exist?

JMT says:

Re: Dotcom didn't MAKE the millions he's got, he TAPPED

“he TAPPED from the income streams that others created…”

Wow, after all this time you’re going to regress back to a download equating to a lost sale? Have you reconsidered your position on the spherical Earth too?

“Irrefutable evidence that he engaged in copyright infringement.”

If by ” irrefutable” you mean it would get laughed out of court, then yes irrefutable evidence indeed.

Nedh says:

Re: Dotcom didn't MAKE the millions he's got, he TAPPED

income streams that should go to content creators

Your argument just contradicted yourself. So why is the money not going to the content creators? If people like Kim are making millions of content creators’ work, shouldn’t that be viewed as a lost opportunity for you? This is what Mike and others refer to as the “new business model”. You either are too ignorant to accept this fact or are afraid to change something that has worked so well for you in the past.

Anonymous Coward says:

Everyone's abdicating authority

The court said the US government had a duty of “candour and good faith” in making an extradition bid, but a summary of the evidence held would suffice.

That whole check and balance thing isn’t important when you have a trustworthy department of justice. Let’s just save a lot of money and time by letting Eric Holder be the judge and jury in all federal cases from now on.

Anonymous Coward says:

i think the questions to ask are ‘what would be said if the situation were reversed and another country wanted/expected to extradite a US citizen without proof of a crime having been committed? would the ‘good faith’ idea hold water?’ in short, absolutely not! it would never be allowed to happen but because it’s the USA using nothing but lies and bullshit again, on behalf of Hollywood, to achieve what they want, it’s a different story! it’s exactly the same as in the Swartz case. the DoJ have royally fucked up, they know it but wont admit it and they have to get Dotcom into prison to save face! what a way for a law enforcement agency to act! and what a way for a government to let one of it’s law enforcement agencies to act! really instills confidence in the justice system, doesn’t it! i dont think!!

Avatar28 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

This a hundred times. What if I said something that managed to seriously piss off someone powerful in China. Or, hell, even some country in Europe decides that I should be criminally charged for something I said. They demand the US extradites me to face trial there. They say they have lots of evidence but shouldn’t have to show it. Is the US just going to roll over? No? Then why should they expect other countries to for them?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I tend to agree, perhaps the DoJ should of supported Iran’s terrorist claims against Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_detention_of_American_hikers_by_Iran

Iran had a legitimate claim that they trespassed on foreign soil, they were from an enemy nation, etc….

When we shortcut justice for others, it may well shortcut justice for our own citizens through public opinion later on.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Hell, it should be the point at which rational people should begin stockpiling legal weapons. Because it’s the point at which fascism is complete.

I take it you haven’t been inside a store in the US that sells guns/ammunition recently. It’s not uncommon to see stores with most of their stock of guns sold out, no matter how many shipments they’ve had since your last visit. Bullets are flying off the shelves so fast they barely touch them. It’s been that way for going on several months, at least.

Rikuo (profile) says:

“had a duty of “candour and good faith” “

So…when SWAT style police are used…when warrants are used illegally…when an intelligence agency is used on citizens when they’re supposed to be looking abroad…when the defense’s evidence is cloned and taken abroad against the direct orders of the court…it’s somehow still sane to say that the US will have candour and good faith?

This is like saying to a known serial rapist to turn up in court, with a weapon, allow him into a room with chained up women and yet somehow expecting him to be a good lil’ boy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Here’s what I find stupid about this whole DotCom debacle:

Kim Dotcom has been involved in all sorts of shit (hacking, fraud, insider trading), but they had to try to nail him on charges of commercial copyright infringement?

Really? Is that all you could pin on him?

And to top that (because the shit didn’t smell bad enough already) they had to turn the entire case into a circus, complete with violations of the NZ law.

Seriously, could this have been handled any worse?

Anonymous Coward says:

Let’s say for a moment that a U.S. Citizen and National who had never been to another country, let’s say, North Korea, had an order against him from the North Korean government demanding his extradition to face trial for some law he stood accused of breaking over the internet, say copyright infringement. Would a US court ever allow the extradition hearing to proceed without evidence being provided of his crime? I mean if Pyongyang says he was infringing millions of dollars of material from The People’ National Propaganda Association, and he’s saying he just called Our Dear Leader a goat f*cker, we wouldn’t just hand him over to a foreign power on good faith, would we?

cpt kangarooski says:

Process matters

Even when I seek reform of copyright law, I don’t suggest legalizing significantly more commercial prima facie infringement than we already have (eg first sale, fair use, statutory licenses), and it would not surprise me to learn that Dotcom has not only broken the actual law, but has broken what I’d like the law to be.

But this is besides the point. What matters is process. Anyone who is to be brought to trial inherently deserves to have their accuser bear the burden of making their case, deserves to have the opportunity to defend themselves, deserves to have all the evidence, testimony, and witnesses made available to them for exculpatory purposes, and deserves great leniency at least until the conclusion of the whole affair.

Otherwise the dangers of having a government which can (either for the benefit of the people, or as the ultimate enforcer for a plaintiff in a civil case) dole out punishment far outweigh the benefits.

If the US has a case, they should be perfectly happy to present whatever evidence they have, both inculpatory and exculpatory, confident in the knowledge that it is sufficent for their goal of seeing justice done under the rule of law.

Their behavior to the contrary, however, suggests that they do not have a solid case that can stand up to scrutiny before any fair and impartial court. As an American, and a lawyer, this makes me worry very much that our judicial system here may be deeply corrupt or at least flawed to the point of needing massive correction.

The DOJ is behaving in such an unjust fashion that no matter how guilty Dotcom may be, I must support him, because it is better that guilty men go free than that innocent men be imprisoned, which is inevitable when the system is unjust.

Rapnel (profile) says:

Re: Process matters

Exactly. All I can do is to stand astonished at the apparent flagrancy and absolute disregard for something that’s supposed to be a pretty well understood facet of just societies. We’re risking and loosing credibility at an alarming rate. Over copyrights? The majority must agree for copyright to exist no? Facilitation of creation they no longer are. In the end they will facilitate nothing more than complete and utter domination over a working class.

Art and communication are not the facilities of control, they are the facilities of humanity.

bobmail says:

Re: Process matters

Yes, process matters – and that is a matter for the US courts. He isn’t on trial in New Zealand, it’s only a question of if there is a case for him to answer in the US.

What Kim (and the original judge) tried to do was get the case tried in New Zealand. The upper court has ruled that isn’t the case, and that they should move along and deal with the issues of extradition, not absolute guilt or innocence.

Kim’s legal team can deal with the details and nuances once he’s in the US. Safe to say if Kim was in the US today, he would already be arrested. That should be more than enough for the NZ court.

Extradition has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it’s just a question of “is there a case for this defendant to answer”. When you understand that, you can understand why Kim’s legal actions in NZ are nothing but a version of the harlem shuffle.

Rapnel (profile) says:

That’s it?! A “We believe you. We will arrange for a hearing for the transfer of our citizen to your keeping.”.

What kind of bullshit extradition treaty is that?

“So, you say you have a case?”
“Yes.”
“Good enough. He’s yours.”
“Thank you. His Majesty will be most appreciative.”

DOESN’T ANYONE REQUIRE PROOF ANYMORE!? Facts? Science? Critical thinking skills? What? Da fuq am I missing?

IP intellectual property pees freeley says:

Mega is pretty much a joke. A search engine that advertises files to get taken down. Lets make their job easier. Instead of 6 Strikes, you will you’re ISP monitoring each and every sent as an email attachment from you’re personal email. You don’t own the rights to that paper you wrote for tomorrow’s presentation at the industry convention.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...