News Kim Dotcom moves step closer to extradition

Oh and I meant to say: No they won't.

No-one would deny they've got some serious problems in front of them, (like most of us have) but a total collapse? In three years? There's no such thing as zero chance, but there's as close to a zero chance of that happening as makes no difference.

 

At the end of the day, despite the legalities behind whether the seizing of equipment was legal or not: Dotcom was still knowingly aiding and abetting Copyright Infringement, and we all know how the recording companies love to crucify people whom are seen being responsible for such actions. Megaupload might've been useful to a large number of people for legal reasons, but it was also absolutely chock full of ripped disks, cracks, and other illegal content.

The argument "Well we're not responsible for what they upload" doesn't wash, the host of the site has the legal obligation to deal with any accusations of copyright infringement, holding your hands up and going "We don't monitor what the users do" doesn't matter, you've got the obligation to sort it, usually by removing the content. If you don't sort it; you're eligible for being sued into the ground, something akin to what's occurring here, this is why so many places have such strictly worded AUPs when it comes to uploading content that isn't your own, if it's not under license and you don't have permission from the original creator for the use; Then it has to be removed. Plain and simple.

I would like to note that these laws only take place in most of Europe and the US. Sweden pretty much allows free redistribution of Copyrighted Content, which is why I'm not ranting and raving about The Pirate Bay, because they're within the laws of the country they're within. Whether it's morally right is another can of worms altogether, one that can be saved for Serious if anyone wants to go there.

I would like to not that the sites aren't under any obligation to do anything about copyrighted content if they aren't made aware of it. This is how such a large portion of Youtube still manages to upload random music videos without having them all removed. (Just putting "I do not own the rights to this song" doesn't actually work.)

 

.//TuNdRa, I agree with what you say for the most part, but I really don't think you've given enough weight to the first line of your own post. I think it matters a great deal how evidence is gathered against him.

If authorities are going to enforce laws, then surely there must be a moral as well as legal obligation for those authorities to operate within those laws themselves? That's a prerequisite, surely? A matter of principal. If authorities are going to duck and weave and bend and break their own laws to enforce them, I think that's a very, very slippery slope we don't want to be heading down.

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is a complete (*insert rude word*) as he's (allegedly) made tens of millions of pounds off the backs of other peoples efforts and that can't be right - I just don't agree with breaking the law to put him in jail, as I think a strong enough case should've been able to be made against him using legally obtained and open evidence.

How would any of us like to be carted off to a foreign country (which we've never even visited before) on the back of 'evidence' that we're forbidden to even see, let alone defend ourselves against? The thing that upsets me about this isn't really the argument about the morality of internet piracy, I think it's more about the fairness and enforcement of law.

 

one countries laws do not apply to anothers.. on that reason, right or wrong for what he has done, u cant enforce ur law on another counties citizens. im sorry but that is the way it is and special cases will only open pandora's box and when will it end. later the US will have carte blanch in extraditing anyone cos they did something that is illegal in their country.

im sorry, im not american, enforce ur laws on ur ppl thx.

 

You CAN if the offense was committed on your territory.
Where the offense occurred is debatable in internet crime, though as the vast majority of Megaupload's servers were in the USA(apparently there was one server in France, and the other thirty-six were ALL in Washington, DC), it's rather easy to argue in this case.

Saying someone operating a business in America should not be bound by American laws as far as his business activities in America is concerned seems... questionable.
If he was smart, he would've had his own servers installed in his Hong Kong headquarters. Or leased them somewhere more amenable to copyright violations. Not set them all up in the US capitol.

 

fair point i missed that part of the situation. then that is a different matter and is bound by their laws in some aspect. i still stand on my point tho in general.

another argument is that internet law is almost nowhere and using existing "land locked" laws are not as compatible and using them is also bending the rules to get some perpetrator.

then there is the project-freeTV kid in the UK that the US also wanted to extradite...

 

which is why a certain mister Assange who's servers are in the aforementioned Sweden is now sitting in a foreign embassy in London...

Can, (not will, or should) can I believe the justicesystem of a conutry that Schleps people off to foreign countries to torture them there because it's not legal in their own?
More importantly, can I respect such a country and it's defenders?