Re: Whatever else, Range had no clue about his job description
"represents an intolerable encroachment on the independence of the judiciary"
This, by the way, is the same Range that had no problem NOT investigating the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst, the German equivalent of the CIA) for treason, even though there is pretty hard evidence the BND acted against Germany by colluding with the NSA. And the person who told him not to investigate was of course the very same Maas.
In that case it apparently wasn't "intolerable encroachment".
Comprehensive patents are taken out by some parties, for the purpose of stopping inventions, or appropriating the fruits of the inventions of others, &c. Such Consequences, more resembling the smuggling and fraud caused by an ill-advised tax than anything else, cause a strong suspicion. that the principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just.
(1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.
With movies it's either publication or production +50 years:
(2) However, in the case of cinematographic works, the countries of the Union may provide that the term of protection shall expire fifty years after the work has been made available to the public with the consent of the author, or, failing such an event within fifty years from the making of such a work, fifty years after the making.
For photographs it's production+25 years.
(4) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works and that of works of applied art in so far as they are protected as artistic works; however, this term shall last at least until the end of a period of twenty-five years from the making of such a work.
There's no "takedown upon notice" in there. Instead you have to have a judge order it. And it doesn't cover library catalogs or other "search engines" that only tell you where a work can be found.
As was found out in 1851, patents are an incredibly stupid idea:
The granting [of] patents ‘inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just. -- The Economist, July 26, 1851
He's continued legal maneuvers to stop the NZ courts from answering the simple extradition warrant are signs of someone trying very hard to avoid arrest - the very definition of a fugitive.
I don't think you happen to know what extradition means. Bascially, it's dependant on a treaty, which usually says: - The deed must be a criminal act in both countries - It can't be of a political nature. - If the punishment might be death penalty, a lot of countries won't extradite. New Zealand won't, for instance. Same goes for torture. - Citizenship. Some countries refuse to extradite their own citizens, but in turn will prosecute them themselves.
Also, it's generally understood, that if a country decides not to extradite, it will prosecute the perpetrator itself, IF the alleged deed is a crime in that country.
With Kim Schmitz, there is only one factor relevant: criminal act.
The trouble is, it's absolutely not clear whether what he did is a) criminal in the first place, b) criminal in both countries.
Because what he's accused of, "copyright infringement" would usually be under civil law. And people can't be extradited for cases relating to civil law. Even more, he's not even accused of that, but "aiding and abetting copyright infringement", which is even more removed from any liability.
But the US insists, because he might have done "aiding and abetting copyright infringement" on a massive scale, its now a crime. Which is not even undisputed in the US itself.
And now they expect NZ to extradite someone on a very weird interpretation of a US law?
How do you know he PUBLISHED the file? Because copyright happens to be about publishing, not about receiving or downloading something. And the technical term for PUBLISHING would be "copyright infringement" idiot.
What exactly has this to do with "assisting copyright infringement"? Which is civil, and not criminal law. And why would the DOJ be involved in the first place? It's clear somebody with an agenda is pulling the strings at the DOJ, and that agenda has nothing to do with law and justice.