Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Wins Appeal In Battle To Extradite Kim Dotcom

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the be-our-guest-be-our-guest-be-our-guest dept.

The Courts 175

Dr Max sends this excerpt from an AP report: "U.S. prosecutors won a New Zealand court victory Friday in their battle to extradite Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and three colleagues accused of facilitating massive copyright fraud through the now-defunct online file-sharing site. The appeals court overturned an earlier ruling that would have allowed Dotcom and the others broad access to evidence in the case against them at the time of their extradition hearing, which is scheduled for August. The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice. Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies."

cancel ×

175 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43044473)

Good boy! Him roll over! Can you sit? Can you sit? Come on, boy...sit!

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43044527)

I can't wait for China to start pushing for the extradition of US citizens for breaking some of its more restrictive internet laws. I mean fair game, right?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044785)

It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.

So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.

USA.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43044847)

It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.

So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.

USA.

So when they do it will be fair?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about a year ago | (#43046303)

Yup, and the Chinese will have airbases in the US. They will fly drones to take out any Chinese citizens in the US that are siding with the enemy. If the US can do that, why not others?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045101)

LOL all that firepower is practically made in china. And unlike the USA, china owes only 2 trillion vs 16 trillion... and 1.2 trillion of that 16 trillion is owned by China...

They also outnumber the USA. Even if you gave everyone a gun in the USA, they'd need to kill at least 11 people in China in order to kill each and every last one.
What are the chances of that happening?

And last but not least: Lets not forget, that China also has nukes.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045691)

also, don't forget that historically speaking, the chinese military has been shown to have all the courage and intestinal fortitude of a bowl of mashed potatoes, having been pwned by practically anyone who has tried.

they're like the big fat kid no one who hoards the marbles cos that's what's currently 'cool', but can't really do anything when the winds of fashion change.

China = big, fat and weak.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43046005)

'course on the other side we have the USA who only won won war in their existence and that was only

a) with the help of the French
b) when they were still part of the British Empire.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43046269)

No ever said people on the internet were good at history...

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (1)

fazey (2806709) | about a year ago | (#43046327)

incorrect.

War of 1812, the brits gave up.
Mexican American war.
Civil war, technically
Spanish American war

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43046369)

The World Wars don't ring a bell? Or perhaps the Spanish-American War or Mexican-American War mean nothing as well.

I just destroyed you and made you look like a little bitch.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (1)

silviuc (676999) | about a year ago | (#43045321)

They might have firepower and whatever, a silly ballerina for president on top of it all, but China has a huge chunk of their economy by the balls. All that firepower is nullified by China's economic power.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045563)

The country that can't even destroy a bunch of camel jockeys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please. But America has always reminded me of a spoiled child, stamping its foot on the ground and threatening to make a scene if he doesn't get what he wants.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | about a year ago | (#43045609)

"always reminded me of a spoiled child, stamping its foot on the ground and threatening to make a scene if he doesn't get what he wants"

I thought you were talking about North Korea.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43046039)

It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.

Well let's see what the statistics say [globalfirepower.com] .

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43044917)

Empire to empire relationship is governed by different kind of realpolitik then empire to vassal state.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (2, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43045613)

Keep that in mind for when you are a vassal state. America is only 300 million people, not even a huge population anymore. It used to dominate economically but haven't you heard? China has now surpassed the US as the largest trader in the world. While the US is celebrating 0.7% growth, China is growing 8-10% every year. They're not even close to being done yet. Don't worry mandarin is not too hard to learn.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | about a year ago | (#43045683)

"Don't worry mandarin is not too hard to learn."

For me I speak the southern dialect (Yue, or Cantonese) so Mandarin is a cake walk. But for those who grew up getting used to writing a totally different script, this could be a monumental task.

For starters I would suggest learning writing in "pinyin" first to learn the basic words, definitions and grammar, before moving to writing the actual script.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#43045981)

Don't worry mandarin is not too hard to learn.

As someone who has learned to speak Mandarin, I can say that this is not true. I have heard that it takes about 20 weeks of full time study for a native English speaker to be able to communicate in basic Spanish, but 80 weeks to reach the same level in Mandarin. I think this is about right. Mandarin is hard. The grammar is simple, but there are a lot of homophones and weird idioms, and worst of all is the tones. Young kids can learn them, but they are almost impossible for an adult whose brain has already congealed. After years of study, I can order in a restaurant and understand tech-talk, but I struggle with casual small talk, and I almost never understand the jokes.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045239)

Treaties and extradition don't work that way.

Are you retarded?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#43045669)

The US & china would have to have an extradition agreement first.
If that were in place and a us company had broken the Chinese laws while doing business in China, then yes I think that would be fair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#Countries_with_diplomatic_relations_but_no_extradition_treaty [wikipedia.org]

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044535)

Harsh to say that about a sovereign nation...but it sums it up pretty nicely.

Representative Democracy (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year ago | (#43044607)

In this soveriegn nation do they have a thing called television?

He who owns the media controls the government, same as here.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43044593)

Easy there. The US thugs haven't "won" anything yet. The extradition hearing isn't until August. This is just a procedural ruling.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044669)

The extradition is complete. Everything else is just a formality. The court just ruled that Dotcom isn't going to be able to use any real evidence to defend himself. Now New Zealand has to follow their treaty obligations and send him to a US kangaroo court where he will face 100,000 charges and a million year jail term (or 2 years in jail on a plea agreement). He's fucked. If I were him, I'd think about escaping to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43045801)

No it didn't.

The court ruled that a summary of the evidence was enough to go to trial and that Kim isn't going to be allowed to tie the case up 'looking at evidence'.

They just stopped one of his stall tactics.

So no need to show evidence of guilt now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43046135)

Or is that only the case if you're an "enemy" of the USA?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044649)

You joke, but NZ have been well ahead of the US in pro-IP protection laws for years. Viz, they implement whatever US corporations want even before they can buy the laws on US soil.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (4, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#43044753)

New Zealand has no other choice but to hand Dotcom over. If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.

I really don't give a rat's ass if Dotcom is convicted or not. However, I find the way that this is being done a bit disturbing. No full access to the evidence against him? This sounds rather like a Soviet denunciation legal procedure.

What do our "I am a Kiwi lawyer" readers have to say about the right of the accused to see the evidence against him in New Zealand? Maybe this is normal there, and nothing special they are doing to railroad Dotcom.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044825)

New Zealand has no other choice but to hand Dotcom over. If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.

They could always go back to sheep-herding.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43044993)

If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.

I doubt that. The movie companies are always looking at the bottom line. New Zealand offers the right landscapes at the right price with first world infrastructure. If it was cheaper elsewhere they'd already be going elsewhere. I very much doubt they'd pay significantly more just to make this point.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (5, Informative)

pscottdv (676889) | about a year ago | (#43045599)

That's the dirty little secret about federal charges in the U.S. Federal court rules don't require the prosecution to hand over their evidence until the trial unlike state courts where the accused has a chance to see the evidence against him- or herself and prepare a defence. And the minimum penalties are always enormous.

That's why federal charges are so highly feared in the U.S. and it's why almost all federal cases are pleaded out.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21570742-how-mandatory-minimum-sentences-distort-plea-bargaining-thumb-scale [economist.com]

The article is about a different issue, but it describes the problem.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (2)

ari_j (90255) | about a year ago | (#43046143)

Keep in mind this is an extradition matter. At an extradition hearing, the issues are basically limited to (1) whether you are the person being sought by the other jurisdiction and (2) whether the charges in the other jurisdiction are the type of charges for which a person can be extradited. I am not as familiar with international extradition as I am interstate extradition within the United States, and certainly there will be specific rules spelled out in an extradition treaty between New Zealand and the United States (possibly by way of the UN, for all I know). But those are the real issues: are you the right guy and are the charges extraditable. The extradition hearing is held in and under the procedural law of the court in New Zealand.

Once arraigned in the court where the charges are pending (the United States federal court), the issue becomes whether you are guilty of the offense charged. And the evidence against you is relevant to that issue. The evidence is largely not relevant to whether you can be extradited. And that's essentially what it sounds like the New Zealand court concluded.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (5, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43044817)

The only thing the US has won here, is a denial for Kim Dotcom to access all available evidence while he would still have an opportunity to affect that evidence.
It has little to do with the actual extradition request itself.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43045519)

In what way would you expect Dotcom to "affect" the evidence? Why would the provide copies in a writable format?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43045853)

Changing evidence doesn't require physically changing evidence, simply changing its context can change its meaning entirely.

Ask O.J. Simpson.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43046347)

What exactly are you concerned about? Describe a situation where providing the evidence against Dotcom to Dotcom would decrease justice. Give me one specific plausible hypothetical.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045193)

Nothing special about NZ in this case. The golden rule always applies. He who has the gold makes the rules.

First (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044493)

Yay

I love this... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044497)

" Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies.""

Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.

Re:I love this... (3, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43044585)

Proof the DOJ apparently doesn't want to "disclose", most likely because they do not have it.

Re:I love this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044743)

Pretty sure you paid for those roads and cars on said roads that all those crimes were committed on.

You think they would manually check who they are paying for the content they upload?
Hell no. That is the job the copyright enforcers have to carry out, not anyone else.

If they have proof of the ACCOUNTS that were uploading the copyrighted content, then those people could be sued, but it isn't up to Kim or anyone else to figure that out. The burden of proof is on them, not him.
He can supply information on those who were uploading content, but even he won't want to do that since he hates the media industry as is and would rather carry this battle out to his deathbed while attempting to undo and remake the industry. (like his original plans before they killed his site all of a sudden when it was announced)

Re:I love this... (3, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#43044975)

Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.

The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it

The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice.

I am not familiar with New Zeland laws, but in U.S., that's not a valid argument. "Bogging down the process" means nothing compared to showing evidence to the accused. Right to confront your accuser and all that.

Re:I love this... (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43045897)

The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it

And he will, at the trial, just like everyone else. So he doesn't have the ability to manipulate context in such a way that makes it appear different than it is.

I am not familiar with New Zeland laws, but in U.S., that's not a valid argument.

It most certainly is a valid argument. Judges regularly do things to prevent lawyers from dragging things out for years via bullshit tactics.

This isn't law and order, its the real world. You don't generally actually get to use retarded technicalities to get off with a few exceptions where the technicality was created intentionally to get defendants an escape plan against a corrupted situation.

Misleading Title (5, Informative)

Nailer235 (1822054) | about a year ago | (#43044513)

The title - while literally true - implies that a court has decided that Kim Dotcom can now be extradited. In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.

Re:Misleading Title (2, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#43045017)

In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.

It's pretty frigging close, really. Access to accuser's evidence seems pretty important. "Tell me, Mr. DotCom... What good is a court... if you are unable to defend yourself?"

Maybe next ruling will be that neither DotCom or his lawyers are allowed to attend the proceedings! Surely, his lawyers (defending him) are "bogging down the proceedings" too. Things would go faster if it was just the U.S. alone presenting their side to the judge.

Re:Misleading Title (1)

ari_j (90255) | about a year ago | (#43046167)

Extradition does not decide guilt. It decides whether you are the person being sought to face charges in the other jurisdiction and whether the charges are extraditable to the other jurisdiction. Evidence of guilt is mostly irrelevant to those questions.

In other news (5, Insightful)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#43044515)

U.S. Prosecutors have arrested the executive boards of ATT, Verizon, Comcast, and many other ISPs for their customers using internet connections to illegally download songs and movies.

BAZINGA!

Re:In other news (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43044547)

Next on the list: Cisco and Cat5 cable manufacturers.

Re:In other news (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about a year ago | (#43044559)

Plastics suppliers for making the plastic for the wheels that go on the office chairs that pitars use when they do their dirty deeds. They should know that someone might do something illegal on chairs that might use those wheels.

Monster Cable Exec Too (4, Funny)

Dareth (47614) | about a year ago | (#43044571)

Don't forget to arrest the Monster Cable Exec too! Their cables allow people who bought movies and songs to enjoy them at a higher quality than their license permitted!

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#43044689)

Should we throw in the copper mining company executives as well? After all, the copper make Monster Cable possible.

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too (3, Funny)

SydShamino (547793) | about a year ago | (#43044921)

What?! No! Monster Cables are made from gold and faerie sweat. That's how they can improve the fidelity of digital signals transmitted over short distances.

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about a year ago | (#43044693)

None of this piracy would be possible without the aiding and abetting of the entertainment industry themselves. After all, if they didn't make the movies, pirates wouldn't have anything to steal! So bang goes the gavel on the CEOs of Universal, Columbia, Paramount, etc.

While we're at it, if it wasn't for the Congress-critters, these laws wouldn't exist to be broken in the first place. Judge, I think you know what must be done...

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43044793)

The guy at Best Buy said that oxygen-free Monster cables offer much faster download speeds on pirated movies than any other cable brand.

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43044925)

Yet another proof that everything has good sides to it.

Re:In other news (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#43044671)

Not quite. See, these guys complied with the Fed's warrant-less wiretapping program. They give something to the government, the government gives something back to them. That's how it works.

Remember the CEO of Qwest who refused to play ball? Guess where he is now...

a summary of the U.S. case would suffice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044517)

wtf???

Re:a summary of the U.S. case would suffice... (3, Funny)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#43044565)

wtf???

US: "He's guilty. And has bad hair."
NZ: "Okay then, you can have him."

Example (2)

Korruptionen (2647747) | about a year ago | (#43044583)

Seems like the US government is going to attempt to make more and more examples out of people. Right or wrong.. you had better not oppose the establishment. Shame.

Re:Example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044641)

The most important thing is not to run any servers in the US and avoid doing business there, though admittedly none of this will protect you from requests for extradition.

Re:Example (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044747)

And it's funny how it's starting to look more so every day that the US gov is but a front for RIAA and MPAA. And for Microsoft and Monsanto...

And then the yanks wonder why we don't like them.

Re:Example (1)

alexo (9335) | about a year ago | (#43045049)

And it's funny how it's starting to look more so every day that the US gov is but a front for RIAA and MPAA. And for Microsoft and Monsanto...

"Starting [wikipedia.org] "?

Re:Example (2)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43044909)

The biggest irony is people think this is something new. The other sad fact is how many American's don't know, don't care to know. The last sad fact is that some think its right. And are glad to see individuals punished to suit an institutions goals. The philosophical education of American's in general is extremely lacking.

We all know... (1)

ZenDragon (1205104) | about a year ago | (#43044591)

We all know this is coming from the pestering and/or financial contributions of industry lobbyists. It is so blatantly and sickeningly obvious at this point. I've all but lost any hope that things will change. I will be creating my own island with my own laws, in the middle of the pacific, anybody care to join me? :) lol

Re:We all know... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43044947)

No, because if you get big enough to matter, you'll be introduced to concept of "you are a terrorist".

Re:We all know... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43045923)

No, hippie communes fail every time.

You could of course actually do something about it rather than running away.

Horray! (0)

s122604 (1018036) | about a year ago | (#43044599)

I feel safer already
To Gitmo with his fat ass

And the Steamroller begins (5, Insightful)

SoTerrified (660807) | about a year ago | (#43044619)

"May I please view the evidence against me so I might put up a proper defense?"
"The appeals court ruled that disclosure would 'bog down the process' and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice"

If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process... Good luck getting a fair trial in the USA where the judge, prosecutor and all aspects of the legal system are under the control of the corporations. I suspect they won't be happy until Kim Dotcom winds up like Aaron Swartz.

Re:And the Steamroller begins (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#43044681)

Sounds like the same bullshit excuse the Apple v. Samsung jury used to disregard prior art.

Re:And the Steamroller begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045463)

Dear butthurt fandroid,
You are in the wrong thread. The 'all glory to samsung' thread is over there.

Re:And the Steamroller begins (1)

hawks5999 (588198) | about a year ago | (#43044829)

Due process doesn't necessarily mean judicial process. h/t AG Eric Holder

Re:And the Steamroller begins (2)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#43044887)

Good point. "Due process" is no process at all if the powers and the courts decide you're not due any process at all. For historical instance... [wikipedia.org]

Re:And the Steamroller begins (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044877)

Don't worry. Kim Dotcom won't roll over that easy...

Seriously. He's not that easy to roll over... just sayin'

Re:And the Steamroller begins (3, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43044899)

From the article:

In its ruling, the appeals court found that full disclosure of evidence was not necessary at the extradition hearing because the hearing is not the venue to determine guilt or innocence. The court pointed out that the legal obligation on the U.S. is simply to prove it has a valid case to answer.

IANAL, so I dont know if this is normal or not; its possible that it is. It would be nice if any international law folks can answer that question (rather than all the wild hysteria and speculation we're seeing).

You have to remember that some courts really are not concerned with guilt or innocence-- if you are appealing a ruling due to a procedural problems, I believe that claiming "but im innocent" will not help as the appeals court doesnt care.

Re:And the Steamroller begins (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044907)

This is slightly different. This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.

The US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith. That should be all they need for an extradition hearing.

Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.

Re:And the Steamroller begins (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43045643)

This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.

The US should not have to prove his guilt before extradition. But it should have to prove that it has a case. And Dotcom deserves a chance to refute that.

US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith.

What evidence is that that any of the US's actions in this case have been done in good faith?

Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.

He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.

Re:And the Steamroller begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045001)

Did you finish reading TFA?

"In its ruling, the appeals court found that full disclosure of evidence was not necessary at the extradition hearing because the hearing is not the venue to determine guilt or innocence. The court pointed out that the legal obligation on the U.S. is simply to prove it has a valid case to answer."

According to the treaty they have with the U.S. the job of the courts is simply to decide if the case is valid or not. As they mention it is nowhere even close to being the trial phase yet.

Of course, this will likely now be punted up to New Zealand's Supreme Court. Unlike the appeals court they can consider broader questions, such as, "Is this extradition treaty even fair?" along with the finer points of the individual arguments. Note that extradition agreements are usually signed between nations with relatively robust legal systems. It is very difficult to fight these things in the western world (which doesn't make much sense with where New Zealand is located - I know!) since the rule of law along with extensive protections for the accused are often in place. Note the differences between the Assange case and that of Gary McKinnon. It more or less took an insanity plea to stop that extradition and I don't think Dotcom can lean on that.

Then again, there are always drone strikes!

Re:And the Steamroller begins (3, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#43045071)

If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process...

By that excellent logic, they should be able to bar DotCom from having any lawyers. Surely, the defense lawyers are "bogging down the process" too? Also, an impartial judge "bogs down the process" by listening to the case.

In our future, courts will become more efficient if this argument is accepted (can they appeal?). Optimal and speedy process is the one where accused is declared guilty right after the charges are read.

Re:And the Steamroller begins (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about a year ago | (#43046157)

You have to consider the point of the hearing and the appeal. This docket is only concerned with the extradition request. It is not a trial.

The US is asking NZ to turn Dotcom over. Dotcom is fighting the request in NZ court, and he appears to have requested the entire case against him in complete detail. That makes no sense at an extradition hearing, because NZ only has to decide if extradition for trial for the actual charges is warranted. The appeals court is correct: a summary of the evidence the US has would be more than enough to determine if the extradition request should be granted. Dotcom wants the evidence so he can get the court to rule in his favor by weighing the evidence. That's what the trial is for, and NZ doesn't have standing to hear such a case.

By virtue of logic... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044635)

If he's found guilty of "facilitating massive copyright fraud" because of the product he offered, then it sets a precedent which will spell doom for the following good fellows:

- American Airlines, United Flight and United Airlines should be found guilty of "facilitating terrorist attacks" since their planes were used.
- Alcoholic product makers should be found guilty of "facilitating disorderly conduct, rape and drunk driving"
- Car makers should be found guilty of "facilitating reckless endangerment and road rage"
- Gun makers should be found guilty of "facilitating homicides and mass murders"
- All ISPs should be found guilty of "facilitating exchange of child pornography material" through their network
- I wouldn't want to be one of the civil engineers who "facilitated suicide" by designing those bridges they jump off of

Then again: USA! USA! USA! Fuck logic. Money talks.

Re:By virtue of logic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045973)

Except none of those scenarios factors in people being rewarded for abusing the product, and internal emails showing the staff of those companies promoting and engaging in such abuses. You're not being "logical", you're being fallacious and irrational, and apparently pretty uninformed. Even if you weren't missing the actual point and making flawed comparisons, you're still ignoring the facts of the case against him and trying to dismiss them by appealing to the potential case law consequences of it - that's not "logic".

can't be held responsible (-1, Flamebait)

ScentCone (795499) | about a year ago | (#43044643)

Really? He built an entire infrastructure and reward system built around wooing people who uploaded ripped off materials in order to attract a leech ecosystem. He deliberately created an environment and an ethos built around ripping off material people would otherwise have to pay for. Saying he's not responsible for his system being used in exactly the way he encouraged it to be used is completely disingenuous. He's lying. We all know the deal.

Re:can't be held responsible (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43046041)

Heh, this got modded as flamebait ... awesome. Good to see slashdot is overcome by 12 year old warez tools who think engineering criminal activity for your benefit should be legal and is good for the world.

Fuck the USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044673)

Why don't they just send a drone to assassinate him? What could anyone do about it?

Re:Fuck the USA (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43044969)

It would be far too costly to uphold appearances on assassinating Dotcom in comparison to just buying local legislative and judiciary.

Looks like money changed hands (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044679)

How could they possibly extradite Kim Dotcom considering all the illegal tactics the US did during it's "investigation" (defying New Zealand court orders, illegally smuggling evidence out of the country, etc.). The New Zealand courts should have realized from that behavior that he is not going to get a fair trial.

This looks like yet another DOJ politically motivated prosecution.

Re:Looks like money changed hands (0)

alexo (9335) | about a year ago | (#43045087)

How could they possibly extradite Kim Dotcom considering all the illegal tactics the US did during it's "investigation" (defying New Zealand court orders, illegally smuggling evidence out of the country, etc.). The New Zealand courts should have realized from that behavior that he is not going to get a fair trial.

So?

Re:Looks like money changed hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045451)

Do you have a valid question?

Re:Looks like money changed hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43046087)

So... given that extradition requests are often DENIED in cases where there are plausible reasons to believe the person-to-be-extradited will not get a fair trial/treatment, guess what?

China, please do us Americans a favor (1)

MikeRT (947531) | about a year ago | (#43044683)

We could end this crap in a day if China would pull this on us. They have the leverage and motivation to get US citizens extradited on equally flimsy grounds. It would be hilarious to see several American bigwigs taken to China and sentenced to 20 years of labor in a laogai.

Re:China, please do us Americans a favor (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43044973)

Empire to empire relations are different from empire to vassal state.

Re:China, please do us Americans a favor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045095)

We are waiting for the precedent to be absolutely solid.

- The Chinese government.

Shades of the Napster case (1)

hessian (467078) | about a year ago | (#43044801)

It's one thing to run the equivalent of an open anonymous FTP site, but once you have an inkling that most users are doing illegal stuff with it, there's a responsibility imposed on you to do something effective about it.

If you don't, the law assumes you're a bad guy.

While I see their point, this blows. Megaupload was the best way to swap all kinds of files. I mainly miss it for the ability to send huge amounts of non-confidential data to clients and friends, and to legally share things like video and audio creations with others.

The problem is that there's no solution for this situation. If you set up an anonymous ftp server, those who need one will most commonly be sharing controversial stuff. Everyone else just publishes the normal way.

Thus, in with those whose use justifies the service existing, there are many whose use will be seen as the purpose. Ultimately, it's a loss for the users.

Re:Shades of the Napster case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045619)

Do you have a legal responsibility to follow the laws of other countries which you're not in?

Good, he deserves life in prison (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044835)

How dare he run a terroristic and traterous site like that.

Scare tactics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044891)

It's really scare tactics. It's an attempt to scare everybody else in the world into complying with THEM.

Hopefully, Kim Dotcom is smart enough to sed aside a lot of money for a rescue operation, in the event he ends up in US Custody.

Doesn't have the gun lobby an interest in this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045063)

After all, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is working along the same lines as "megaupload doesn't violate copyright, people violate copyright".
I.e., if there's a ruling which says that the provider of means to commit a crime is guilty, wouldn't that apply to gun producers too? (And lots of other things too, actually). And it still applies if it is only "facilitating/enabling/making easer to commit a crime".

Re:Doesn't have the gun lobby an interest in this? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43046107)

True. Servers didn't violate copyright. But thats not what this is about. He's not being prosecuted for uploading it himself. He's being prosecuted for knowingly and intentionally facilitating copyright violations FOR PROFIT. In fact he ENCOURAGED IT.

We also go after weapons dealers who don't follow the law and facilitate crime as well. For instance, a gun store owner encouraging people to buy his guns to commit murder would be charged with all sorts of things if someone actually went out and did it.

If the gun store owner does his job properly, doesn't sell to people that he shouldn't, runs background checks and doesn't encourage people to commit crime, and if he sees crime in progress he alerts authorities or otherwise tries not to let it continue, then he's not going to have an issue if he's gun store sells a gun that kills someone.

DANGEROUS AND DISTURBING (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045359)

So I guess now you don't have the right to disclosure in a legal case if you are the defendant. This is a DANGEROUS and DISTURBING turn in our legal system and any first year legal student or judge should know that and for sure this is a situation where this could hurt the case.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>