'course, then the current government runs into issues with the fact that they gave him residency in the first place (which had people pissed off because the process involved was even introduced) which has only been NOT blowing up in their face utterly because he's subsequently become something of a public figure with popular support.
actually, Key and his mates have managed to walk themselves into a situation where our network is screwed if they go against china, the US is pissed and our security Maybe compromised if they don't (except it's Already compromised by US interests, so who cares?), the US and hollywood is pissed if they decide to come clean on the Dotcom thing, and the public is pissed AND they've broken the law all over the place if they don't... (and there's more things than That that put them between public outrage and US and/or Chinese interests, incidentally... not to mention the places where their own Policy causes paradoxes with internal issues...)
wandered themselves right into a nice little corner between a rock, a hard place, the devil and the deep blue sea. hehe.
'course, they're politicians, so the odds of it biting them anything like as hard as it should are low, but still.
'course, the one thing Key Can't control by anything even vaguely approaching legal means is the courts.
revoking his residency would pretty much confirm the fact that the entire case is a political stitch-up, the courts would Still be involved, and i'm pretty sure the result would be a collapsed government. (i'm not sure of the exact court processes, but the extradition would fail, for one thing. if they then force him out of the country (which they might find themselves unable to do) i'm pretty sure they would, at least, not be able to send him directly to the sates. not legally, at least.)
not that the PM will Admit anything like that, oh no.
after all, such behaviour is one of the main things that's Hammering his popularity. (though media spin and general voter apathy/stupidity may be compensating somewhat.)
also, the three strikes law? yeah. went through the whole process, got ripped out as a bad idea, added back in by the relevant minister as party policy or something, spawned wide scale protest, the entire section was tossed, or something like, then, when parliament was meeting under urgency, supposedly to deal with the Christchurch earthquake, they somehow contrived to add that bit back in again. (meeting under urgency means nothing that is brought to vote goes through the select comity or public consultation stage. it is presented, voted, and they move on. it is used to deal with crises and emergencies, as well as to clear the deck of minor stuff/things that need to be dealt with before parliament resumes in February or so at the end of the year. it's not uncommon for important stuff to be snuck into the end of year clearance, but the use of an emergency session to deal with a national disaster to pass it is in appallingly bad taste, at best.)
such is my understanding of the sequence of events at least. i may have the details wrong, but the final result Was rammed through under urgency after the earthquake. (and our government isn't as proportional/representative as it may appear. there's an obsession with it being able to 'carry out the business of government without disruption', nevermind that the disruption in question would, usually, be the crippling of Appallingly bad ideas the current system lets them get through simply by trading their agreement to support someone else's appallingly bad ideas.)
any other party running the show (except ACT) would have been more resistant to this nonsense (ACT would have folded even quicker/been more accommodating. they're the 'subsidise the rich, privatise everything, strip away all regulation, and fuck the public interest' party, really.)
unfortunately, given who our current PM is, that'll probably happen too as soon as possible (he's done it before).
master of saying one thing and doing another (the current lot don't even bother using interesting spin and propaganda. they just claim one thing, do another, then pretend no one told them about it while passing laws to cover their arses.)
only in that someone without money would have folded a lot earlier due to running out of resources and/or not caught the media's attention as quickly.
and even then only because the odd bit of legal weirdness that lead to Dotcom becoming a resident in the first place was questionable (not his actions, but the actions of those that made it an option in the first place). the police raid would have made the news anyway.
yeah. someone without money probably would have got off too if they were willing to fight it that long and got the same judges.
heck, the simple fact that it's the US government pulling the strings on the other side would have meant that it got a lot of the same reactions.
only difference is that, as he has money, he has had contact with a lot of upper level types who have also screwed up and are being dragged through the mud too, where as otherwise they would have been separate things and not caused quite such major scandal and upset...
'course, if he hadn't had money this wouldn't have come up in the first place. wouldn't be a high enough profile target, probably.
but yeah, no money = government funding for defence and less immediate media attention. so long as he was willing to fight it, that's about it.
Unfortunately, the current government are US puppets.
sadly, if the media is anything to go by, while the Dotcom case is big news, the TPP is barely even a blip on the public's radar.
also, given the current government, it doesn't matter What the public wants, TPP and other such stupidity will go through. under any other government (except maybe ACT, i guess, if they somehow managed to form one by themselves) this sort of nonsense might have lead to some changes... (heck, a lot of the smaller parties would have been fighting against US influence from the start. Nationalism (for want of a better term to use in opposition to globalism and/or foreign imperialism, economic or otherwise (we Might accept a re-consolidation of the commonwealth. any other such manoeuvres get bad reactions. see the recent uproar over selling farms to Chinese interests)) is/was becoming a major plank in the platforms of... well, everyone but national, though how much so varied (not their positions on it, but how willing they are to compromise those positions in favour of other stuff))
NZ does not have meaningful cable. TV3 is free to air. paid for by advertising (and the advertising is NOT obnoxiously placed, most of the time.)
NZ does not really have meaningful cable. (Telstra's fibre optic network Does provide rebroadcasting of Sky and the terrestrial broad cast free to air channels as an optional extra, as well as a telephone service, but the point in that network is it's role as an ISP, mainly. if you get ALL of those through them it's slightly cheaper than getting each one separately. by about ten bucks out of a cost of something like 150 or so a month.)
like wise, time-shifting is entirely legal, and most such devices can be set up to record automatically.
so, yeah, none of those excuses really hold water here.
(well, except that replacements for the obsolete VHS tape (other than 'download it to the computer's hard drive, probably from torrents') seem to have not really taken off despite VHS itself falling out of use... though with the converter boxes for digital TV having sockets for external hard drives and the shift to that system, this may change.)