"He can come to the US and have his day in court. In fact, if he had done so 3 years ago and was in fact innocent, his problems would already be over."
And in the meantime he would have most a few years and millions of dollars more than he already has, forced to like in a country he has no interest in, unable to work or run a business and probably held without bail (OMG, flight risk!). You can't see why someone who believes they're innocent would fight as hard as they can against that? I'm pretty sure you would.
"The amount of effort he is putting into remaining out of the US is enough to make one think perhaps he knows that if he actually has to go to court on the underlying charged, he will lose big time."
Again, you seem to think simply going to court in the US would be no big deal, a minor inconvenience, a mere trifling. I'm not sure if you're being willfully untruthful or if you really are completely ignorant about what that experience would be like.
"I don't know his thought process, except to say that he is working extremely hard to avoid having to face justice."
He could also be working extremely hard to avoid having to face injustice. You might think the US legal system is a paragon of justice, but many people who've experienced it think its rotten to the core.
"Remember, extradition has nothing to do with guilty or innocence. The NZ courts are in no position to rule on that. They can only decide that the US has presented them with a valid extradition warrant, that the charges are covered by treaty, and that they have some semblance of a case."
And so far they've failed pretty badly at all of those things. You might think this has been dragged out by Dotcom's legal trickery, but if the US had a genuinely solid case this would've been over a long time ago. The case is weak, and lot's of legal minds smarter than you and I have said so.
"Yeah, I am really horrible, hating that Kim got rich on the back of others..."
That is literally the only way to get as rich as he is. He's just one of a very large club, so if you really just have a problem with rich people than at least admit that.
It should be noted that millions of happy customers around the world contributed that money for the legitimate use of a legal service. The only people complaining were the movie studios who are the poster children for getting rich on the back of others.
As that article points out, a lot of activities are described in the report as "illegal" or implied to be illegal, when they're simply not. Things like using VPN's to access US Netflix from other countries (terms of dervice breach), downloading infringing content (a civil matter, not criminal), or simply using uTorrent and Bit-Torrent for anything (perfectly legal). It's another case of repeating an incorrect or inaccurate claim often enough to trick the simple-minded policy makers into over-reacting.
"In DC, a single company is contracted to serve Dulles airport."
This is common practice in airports around the world, as it's a great way for airport companies and taxi companies to gouge passengers with higher prices. Until the likes of Uber came along, passengers had no choice but to suffer these cozy, anti-competitive arrangements.
Note that's it's never been Snowden who decided what to publicly release and when, but the journalists he entrusted the data to. They've spent a lot of time going though it all to decide what should and shouldn't be publicized, so any criticism about that info should be directed at them.
And at this point it's pretty safe to laugh out loud at anyone suggesting he's working for Russia.
"Here's a thought to ponder: how do you maintain both a safe speed and the proper distance between vehicles, when the car behind you is still under manual control and they're tailgating you?"
I think it's obvious the the statement was referring to following distance, which is directly under the control of the driver (human or not), but it seems feasible to have an autonomous car react to a tailgater to moving out of their way if a free lane is available. Beyond that there's not much an autonomous car should do. Pretty much all the suggestions people have for dealing with tailgaters involve risky or inflammatory behavior that is unlikely to ever be implemented...
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
"Where exactly is your "right to rip" stated? What's it based on?"
Since you're the one who wants to impose artificial limitations on what's possible (as all laws do), what's your justification? What possible reason can an artist or creator have for wanting me to buy multiple copies of the same file for personal use in my house, car and portable music player? We all know that the only real intended "benefit" is for the copyright holder (probably not the creator) to make more money, but I'm curious to hear your reasoning anyway.
"Considering there are millions of artists that support copyright and the protections it provides them..."
Your "millions" claim is completely without basis or merit. What we do see is a small, vocal minority of historically successful artists like Metallica, Don Henley, Prince, Paul McGuiness, etc, who got stupidly rich by winning the big label lottery back when labels had a stranglehold on the supply of recorded music, complaining that the millions don't flow in like they used to.
"...I'll take their word for it, rather than some tech douchebag that whores himself out to a mega-corporation like Google."
Your definition of "whoring" yourself out is interesting. You base this stupid claim on the fact the Mike once used Google's facilities, and nothing else. And yet the term seems far more accurate when applied to artists who sign multi-year, multi-album deals with record labels who pay them literally nothing and keep complete control of their creative output. Sounds far more like a pimp/whore relationship to me.
Re: Re: Is It Property, Or Isn’t It? -- But policing is EVERYONE's responsibility.
"If someone sees you being beaten and robbed, they should just ignore it? That's the loony libertarian view."
It's genuinely hilarious how often you try to make an argument and end up proving yourself wrong as a result, usually because you rely so heavily on terrible analogies and strawmen.
There is no legal requirement to assist someone being beaten and robbed, just as there should be no legal requirement for intermediaries to police copyright infringement. Even if we were making a moral argument (and the DMCA is not that), the case for helping out someone being beaten and robbed, even if you're just running away to get help, is a hell of a lot stronger than the one for helping out big copyright holders, who have no moral high ground to whine from.