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.
The NSA whistleblowing mostly uncovered criminal behaviour of a government agency. Actually things the people have a need and a right to know. It's about a government body doing bullshit. And it's totally irrelevant whether "damage" is being done. As a comparison: You can talk all day about "damage" to your scamming operation when you get outed.
The OPM hack on the other hand, THAT is really bad. There's no data there the public needs know. There's no revelation of criminal behaviour on the side of OPM not related to the hack (and related to the hack it's probably mostly "negligence"). Of course there might be rather criminal behaviour of the government or other agencies involved, but you can't really blame the OPM for: - Needing to screen way too many people because some idiots classify everything, so a lot of people need clearance to get their work done. - Other government agencies hoarding zero-day exploits which might have been found independently by the perpetrators and used against them.
When a patent office gets involved, don't expect anyone to profit except big companies. And the USPTO is one of the worst offenders in illegally granting patents, so you know somebody is getting screwed.
You could actually put a tax on gas, to cover the damage that's done to the environment and to people. Which would raise gas prices by a factor of 3. You could even factor in the costs of road building and repair, which actually wouldn't raise it much more.
The other option of course is to have people pay it with income taxes or healthcare costs. As it is done now...
Of course, since "it's not longer legal", you might just skip the hassle and expense of buying a CD and ripping it and just download the songs from somewhere where somebody already uploaded them illegally.
Clever strategy for getting people not to buy CDs anymore.
Thomas Babington Macaulay, MP, notes in his speech in the house of commons, 1841, regarding the proposed copyright extension to after the death of the author:
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
That was the moment respect for copyright died. And it won't get it back unless you lift these unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead.