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.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.
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: appeal, evidence, extradition, fbi, kim dotcom
Reader Comments
The First Word
“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.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ah. I'm sorry, Mike. I know how important it is to you that Pirate Kim not be extradited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Get a fucking a life and go back to fox news where you can live amongst your people.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good to know that your response to truth is censorship.
Pirates love to censor!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's Republicans, not pirates.
"Pirates love to censor!"
Pirates love to override censorship by making censored materials available to the public, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its so cute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The case having tons of issues is still a fact.
So please lay off the ad hom attacks, they're just depressingly stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why aren't you honest about who you are? Coward, indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So much shame that he publishes his opinions here every day under his real name, which anyone can contact him about.
If pretty sure if he felt that shameful he'd post as an AC like you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
Where's the disaster? ROFLMAO! You guys are hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure your crappy music is also being circulated on the new Mega.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are so dishonest its transparent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then I realized it was a waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, we get back to the Aaron Schwartz scenario. Ruining an innocent man because you don't like him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep dreeming yourself if you think that you are above the ruling of the NZ court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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?
- 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Czechoslovakia check
Poland check
Norway check
Denmark check
Netherlands check
Belgium check
France check
you allies are hilarious
yours
Adolf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence...
I'm sure Headly Lemarr is behind the whole plot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
DoJ shown to be liars...and worse? Check!
DoJ lawyers called incompetent? Check!
Kim Dotcom still free? Check!
Kim Dotcom operating NEW business? Check!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are putting the cart before the horse here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They'll hold on to the evidence for a while, possibly extradite Kim and hold him in jail for a while and then...nothing.
They'll bail out one way or another, you just wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One extradited and in US jail The DOJ will trump up and rack up more charges (like they did with Aaron Swartz) in order to force Dotcom to do a plea bargain and they will no doubt use those guilty pleas to go after and shutdown other file lockers on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try at Trolling but you really missed several key point.
Like Due Process.
I so hope your children get arrested for file sharing one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I AM THE LAW!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its amazing how dumb you are sometimes, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope. I'm just pointing out the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I also seem to remember some people pointing out that rojadirecta and dajaz1 were "obviously" infringing on something. What that something was, we'll never know because the case was dropped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Folks the sad truth is that this AC may actually have a very bad home life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dotcom didn't MAKE the millions he's got, he TAPPED
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom didn't MAKE the millions he's got, 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom didn't MAKE the millions he's got, he TAPPED
The search for gainful employment still ongoing, I take it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom didn't MAKE the millions he's got, he TAPPED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom didn't MAKE the millions he's got, he TAPPED
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom didn't MAKE the millions he's got, he TAPPED
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone's abdicating authority
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the insider trading is a rock...
nope, too close to home, for the masters of the universe...
hee hee hee
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Process matters
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Process matters
Art and communication are not the facilities of control, they are the facilities of humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Process matters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Process matters
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry had to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DOJ stands for Department Of Judgement. They don't accuse people, they tell them what crimes they are guilty of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In soviet USA, fail means win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“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.