Dotcom loses in the Court of Appeal

Written By: - Date published: 11:05 am, July 9th, 2018 - 60 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, Andrew Little, uncategorized - Tags:

Kim Dotcom

The Court of Appeal has released its decision in the Kim Dotcom extradition case. The case has had a lot of resources thrown at it by both sides and I hope my brief description does the arguments and the judgment justice.

The decision can be read here. As befits the resources that have been poured into the case the decision is complex and will be considered authoritative. And the case is now off to the Supreme Court.

This is not meant to be a detailed dissection of the case. But there are some interesting aspects of the case that deserve comment.

First the business model used by Megaupload was described in some detail.

Dotcom maintained that his business was legal because there was a robust system in place to take down material stored on the Megauload se4rver that was in breach of copyright. There is legal protection for the innocent storing of copyright material if there is a robust take down procedure.

The Court thought that the system Dotcom put into place was, to use that legal phrase, a little too cute.

The basics were that Megaupload provided file storage for its customers. Its terms of service provided that users must not upload any files that infringed copyright.

A Megaupload user could upload a movie which had been ripped from a DVD or otherwise illicitly obtained. Megaupload would convert it and store it as a flash video (.flv) file.

A file in that format can be played directly or streamed in an internet browser without needing to be downloaded. Copies were stored on multiple servers around the world.

When the file was uploaded it would be given a unique identifier. The user would be provided with a URL  link permitting the user to access that file. The user could share the link with anyone, but could not do so on a Megaupload site.

A movie stored on Megaupload could be viewed via Megavideo, a separate website that shared Megaupload’s database. Anyone who had the uploading user’s Megaupload link could view it via their browser, but they could not search directly for infringing movies on Megaupload or Megavideo.

Viewers could access files stored on Megaupload via third-party or ‘linking’ websites that Megaupload did not control.

Viewers could watch 72 minutes of a Megaupload stored movie for free. To watch the balance the viewer would have to purchase a premium subscription from Megavideo.

Until June 2011 Megaupload ran a rewards programme that paid users for uploading files that were much in demand for downloading. The United States says many of these files were popular because they were copyrighted and not otherwise freely available for online viewing or download.

A small proportion of users uploaded many files in exchange for rewards. One user uploaded that many infringing files he received reward payments of more than US $50,000.  He was the subject of 1,200 take-down requests. In one six-month period links created by this user generated more than 10 million downloads.

At its height Megaupload earned revenues of more than US $175 million and accounted at one stage for four per cent of global internet traffic. The US government claimed that this was evidence of the systematic infringement of copyright and says that copyright owners lost more than US $500 million.

To save server space Megaupload engaged in a practice called deduplication. When a user uploaded a file identified by Megaupload as a copy of a file already held on its servers Megaupload would not store the file but would send the user a new link to the existing file.

The US Government claimed that files that MegaUpload treated as duplicates were usually uploaded by the same user and would be based off the same rip. Some users uploaded the same file many times in anticipation of take-down requests from copyright owners. Each upload would receive a new link which could be offered to the public on linking websites.

Copyright owners in the United States very frequently asked Megaupload to take down infringing files. The US Government contended that Megaupload did not respond by deleting or disabling access to infringing files but would delete the link nominated in the take-down notice, leaving the file accessible via other links.

The case features some Skype discussions between some of the defendants (not Dotcom) which look pretty incriminating including discussions between Ortmann and Van der Kolk where it is clear they knew that material  in breach of copyright was being stored on the site.  As the Court put it:

There is also evidence of several conversations between the appellants themselves which on the face of it constitute evidence of guilty knowledge and dishonesty.

The legal discussion is rather dense and brains better than mine can dissect it.

The proceeding was attacked on the basis that it was an abuse of process, the circumstances including …

… the unlawful interceptions of communications by the Government Communications Security Bureau, the failure to disclose to the District Court when applying for a provisional arrest warrant under s 20 of the Extradition Act that the information had been collected illegally, the military-style raid on Mr Dotcom’s home as well as unreasonable search and seizure.

[289] Mr Dotcom also alleged the prosecution was commenced against him in the United States for political reasons and that New Zealand granted him permanent residence so as to streamline his extradition.

The Court refused this application, stating that it did not come close to the very high threshold that must be met in these sorts of cases.  The Court also thought that these were issues for trial rather than at the extradition hearing stage.

There was some discussion about double criminality.  The Court held that this was a requirement but that the offences were extradition offences under the Act and the request was valid.

The case is bound for the Supreme Court.  It looks like there is a distinct possibility it will hit Andrew Little’s desk at some stage in the not too distant future.

60 comments on “Dotcom loses in the Court of Appeal ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. patricia bremner 1
    9 July 2018 at 11:16 am

    No matter how it ends up…. he was right about J KEY and our system is not covered in glory in this.
    Dotcom is lucky in Andrew Little. A more honest man would be hard to find.

  2. Wayne 2
    9 July 2018 at 11:58 am

    Assuming the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal, I would be surprised if the Minister does anything other than uphold the courts decision. The courts have looked at every angle of this case exhaustively, probably more than any other case in the history of the New Zealand legal system.

    Unlike you Patricia, I think the courts have done an excellent job in considering all the issues raised by both KDC and by the Crown on behalf of the US. No-one can seriously suggest the courts have been subject to any pressure. They have acted fully independently, just as I would expect.

    In such circumstances it would be a “brave/foolish” Minister who substituted his/her reasoning for that of the court in this particular case. I say his/her because it may not even get to the desk of Andrew Little, given the time everything takes in this case.

    Of course the Supreme Court may overturn the Court of Appeal, which will be the end of the matter.

    • Tricledrown 2.1
      9 July 2018 at 5:57 pm

      Wayne we could do a 2 for 1 Deal and extradite Stephen Joyce as well.

  3. Sanctuary 3
    9 July 2018 at 12:25 pm

    Little will deport Dotcom without much thought. To do otherwise would look like a Star Chamber like act of political patronage given the exhaustive legal process.

    Also, politically getting Dotcom out of NZ once and for all is a no brainer. The deep state and the government establishment loath him for showing them up as clowns. The general public is sick to the back teeth of him. The USA will like it. Dotcom’s remaining supporters are largely of the too left and pure to vote Labour kind.

    In short, Dotcom has no friends of influence left and a whole pile of important enemies.

    Deportation in those circumstances is a pretty easy decision.

    • Save NZ 3.1
      9 July 2018 at 1:34 pm

      I think history always shows what happens.

      This case will be judged as it opens a massive can of worms. The US has closed it’s borders and destroying the UN, inequality around the world is escalating as more and more control is concentrated in a few corporations hands. So NZ decides to let then have personal right to justice outside of known international law?

      We applaud David Lange around the world as standing up to the US, a few decades later are the new Labour government, Uncle Tom?

    • Ross 3.2
      9 July 2018 at 8:07 pm

      No, Little won’t deport KDC because only the Immigration Minister can do that. Having said that, KDC apparently falsified his residency application, so could be deported, presumably to Germany, which ironically has refused to extradite one Megaupload employee to the US. So KDC could avoid extradition but probably not deportation.

    • Richard Christie 3.3
      10 July 2018 at 6:36 pm

      Sanctuary, you proffer a lot of considerations as to KDC’s fate.
      Notably none of them are considerations of law or concerns about due process nor mention of consequences resultant from our state agencies repeatedly breaking the law.

  4. Bill 4
    9 July 2018 at 12:32 pm

    Did he break any NZ laws? Possibly copy-right ones I guess.

    Did he commit a crime in the US? Well, only if the domain “.com” is regarded in some way as being sovereign territory of the US. The US Government has previously argued that in seeking the extradition of people in the UK. (A kid behind a site called TVshack was a target a few years back)

    Me being simple and all – if he broke NZ law, then he gets tried and done in NZ. If he broke a US law, but wasn’t in the US then…well, put it this way, could the NZ government seek the extradition of a kiwi living in Canada who had broken the NZ laws on cannabis use by sparking up in Canada?

    Way I see it, Dotcom may well have been an unpleasant money grubbing bastard and much else besides. But it’s not his personality or character that’s on trial. And this “long arm” of US legal jurisdiction needs to be fcking well chopped off.

    • opium 4.1
      9 July 2018 at 1:09 pm

      Totally agree.

    • saveNZ 4.2
      9 July 2018 at 1:27 pm

      +100 Bill

      “But it’s not his personality or character that’s on trial. And this “long arm” of US legal jurisdiction needs to be fcking well chopped off.”

      Likewise extraditing people to any other countries to be ‘bought to justice’ on their terms when the person does not live in or operate in that country. It could be China next, Russia, Philipines, who knows but NZ should not be the ‘human rights’ abuse country that sets that precedent!

      Dotcom should be tried in NZ under NZ law and the US corporations who apparently ‘lost’ the profits should be paying for it and fronting up for the case, not sure how the NZ government is involved in ‘helping their case along with a lot of illegal activity by police and our governor general . The NZ taxpayers should not be involved in this case at all as it should be a civil case. The dirty taste of whoever in NZ made our government responsible to pay for any damages should Dotcom be found innocent should be investigated and that person bought to the courts for misleading the government.

      Now it seems like there is a ‘financial’ incentive for the NZ courts to set this bad human rights precedent and be a nation that sells justice to save it’s own skin.

      At a time of declining human rights and greedy self serving politics where money and power buys justice or in this case injustice, I wonder what sort of country and what sort of government we are becoming.

      • cleangreen 4.2.1
        9 July 2018 at 2:57 pm

        100& there saveNZ.

        ‘NZ should not be the ‘human rights’ abuse country that sets that precedent!’

      • Wayne 4.2.2
        9 July 2018 at 3:24 pm

        I presume you are aware we have an Extradition Treaty with the US. We are therefore obligated to act on their extradition requests, with the courts deciding whether the person should be extradited or not.

        The reverse also applies.

        However, going by your previous posts, you would think we should withdraw from the treaty. We could do so, but in the meantime we have to comply with the treaty. If we deliberately ignored the treaty, the US could take New Zealand to the International Court of Justice.

        Since New Zealand stresses in our international relations, that we act by a rules based system, we are hardly likely to deliberately flout the rules.

    • Wayne 4.3
      9 July 2018 at 1:35 pm

      Bill

      Although you have framed it as “me being simple and all” what you have essentially advocated is that no-one gets extradited for anything. They are either tried here, or not at all.

      Anyway, why do you think the District Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal are all wrong in concluding there are analogous crimes in both countries in respect of what KDC has done?

      Of course, the Supreme Court might agree with you.

  5. indinana 5
    9 July 2018 at 12:47 pm

    “Did he commit a crime in the US?”

    Only one way to find out, face trail there – what could he possibly be afraid of? From what we know, he hasn’t even challenged if he has any case to face up to.

    • Bill 5.1
      9 July 2018 at 1:20 pm

      No. The question isn’t “did he break a US law”. The question is did he do so in the US?

      If he didn’t break a US law in the US (ie – within the legal jurisdiction of the US), then there are no grounds to have him subjected to the US legal system.

      • David Mac 5.1.1
        9 July 2018 at 1:56 pm

        So I can hack a billion dollars out of Bank of America and I’m untouchable? I can’t see a defense of “I’ve never set foot in the US’ saving my bacon.

        Dotcom’s big problem is his Fagan activity. Paying kids to steal on his behalf. In doing so he has fallen foul of US racketeering legislation.

        • Bill 5.1.1.1
          9 July 2018 at 2:12 pm

          Where is the Bank of America located? That’s where the crime occurred. And executing it “by remote” is still perpetrating a crime on US soil.

          But where is “.com” located and who (if anyone) has legal jurisdiction? As I said above, that’s been the basis of extradition arguments put forward by US authorities seeking to do over British nationals who’ve never set foot outside of Britain.

          • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1
            9 July 2018 at 3:00 pm

            .com is under US jurisdiction“

            The domain was originally administered by the United States Department of Defense, but is today operated by Verisign, and remains under ultimate jurisdiction of U.S. law.[3][4][5]

            Verisign Registrations in the .com domain are processed via registrars accredited by ICANN. The registry accepts internationalized domain names.

            • dukeofurl 5.1.1.1.1.1
              9 July 2018 at 3:20 pm

              Plus I think some of the servers they used/rented were located within US

              • McFlock …
                9 July 2018 at 4:24 pm

                ISTR something like that as well

              • saveNZ …
                11 July 2018 at 3:25 pm

                If they are trying to claim that having data on servers in the US is grounds for extradition – I’m sure it’s gonna be a bad precedent set for US tech companies like Amazon, Microsoft and the US clouds, as corporations move to use servers and providers in non US sites if there is risk of directors being deported on a whim to face charges under US laws, if this precedent is set… extradition under US laws by server and domain name rather than the laws of that country they reside in!

            • Paul Campbell 5.1.1.1.1.2
              9 July 2018 at 4:14 pm

              That’s a spurious argument, doing a DNS lookup is legal, what we’re talking about is file sharing

              • McFlock …
                9 July 2018 at 4:23 pm

                It wasn’t an argument about DNS lookups.

                Bill wanted to know who has jurisdiction over .com sites. There was the answer. The company that runs that TLD is american, under american jurisdiction, and thence onward it flows.

        • Dariusz Wieclawski 5.1.1.2
          9 July 2018 at 8:35 pm

          Where did you find that crazy information that Kim paid kids to steal on his behalf?Megaupload,iCloud,Dropbox are just the storages.Lots of people uploading everything. The problem was Kim storage was better than others and corporations just couldn’t take it and simply close the competition. The problem is that NZ government helped US corporations against own residents even allowed FBI to ride Kim home in NZ. That is disgusting and illegal.If Kim Dotcom will be extradited to USA it is mean that our Government selling own residents and citizens to corrupted criminal corporations. So that will be a crime. I believe that Andrew Little will stop the madness.

          • David Mac 5.1.1.2.1
            10 July 2018 at 9:24 am

            It’s common knowledge, this from Mickey’s post:

            “Until June 2011 Megaupload ran a rewards programme that paid users for uploading files that were much in demand for downloading. The United States says many of these files were popular because they were copyrighted and not otherwise freely available for online viewing or download.

            A small proportion of users uploaded many files in exchange for rewards. One user uploaded that many infringing files he received reward payments of more than US $50,000. He was the subject of 1,200 take-down requests. In one six-month period links created by this user generated more than 10 million downloads.”

      • dukeofurl 5.1.2
        9 July 2018 at 3:17 pm

        The similar case the Court of Appeal considered was Cullinane, who was indicted for racketeering after he was said to be running a visa fraud scheme by bringing in kiwi long distance truck drivers to work in US

        (a) Between July 1996 and March 1999 a scheme operated that took nearly 200 truck drivers into the United States for them to be
        illegally employed in the United States as long-haul truck drivers.
        The drivers obtained tourist visas and were admitted into the United
        States based on those visas while at all material times they intended
        to work.
        (b) Mr Cullinane’s part in the process was that he was the
        recruiter of drivers in New Zealand. He recruited in seminars within
        New Zealand attended on occasions by him and on occasions by an
        alleged co-offender Mr Melbourne.

        United States of America v Cullinane, [2003] 2 NZLR 1
        ‘The High Court held that Cullinane was not eligible for surrender on
        either the racketeering or visa fraud charges. In determining
        Cullinane’s eligibility for surrender both the District and High Court
        used a three-stage test set out in the Extradition Act 1999. The
        United States was granted leave to appeal from the High Court decision
        to the Court of Appeal .
        The Appeal Court dismissed the appeal

        Inspite of Cullinane being ruled ‘not eligible’ for extradition for complex reasons, the racketeering offence was similar to Dotcom, the Court of Appeal had to overturn its previous Cullinane precedent in order to ‘catch’ Dotcom

    • Richard@Downsouth 5.2
      9 July 2018 at 3:06 pm

      Mega upload only did what google drive, dropbox, and a slew of other cloud hosts did… Mega infact had a robost DCMA copyright takedown policy, and took down files reported a lot quicker than the competition… they were just singled out by the MPAA/RIAA Mafia…

      On top of this, the US Govt ordered Megaupload to HOLD files on its servers so they could chase people downloading and uploading files… then prosecuted Mega for failing to obey the DCMA

      • David Mac 5.2.1
        9 July 2018 at 4:55 pm

        I don’t think this right. Yes, a Disney movie can be found at many locations that are not aligned with the content owners.

        As per Mickey’s overview, Dotcom paid bulk uploaders cash for doing so, not pocket money, one uploader banking $50,000.

        Me pinching a photo off your website and making it available to others and feathering my nest via your creativity is one thing. If I was to pay a team to steal your original content and deliver it to my site, in the US I’d be breaking the same laws established to capture gangsters. Dotcom is up on racketeering charges.

        • Gabby 5.2.1.1
          9 July 2018 at 6:09 pm

          Would you go to gaol for 12 mths at least if you did it here though davy?

          • David Mac 5.2.1.1.1
            9 July 2018 at 6:35 pm

            If I was making $175 million a year purveying stuff that wasn’t mine I’d expect repercussions.

  6. patricia bremner 6
    9 July 2018 at 1:40 pm

    Yes Bill I agree. This has nothing to do with personalities or even crime. It has everything to do with power.
    “The exhaustive legal process” has been answering queries and questions in law put up by Dotcom’s legal team. The acceptance of shoddy police and Dept behaviour as OK
    remains a dirty stain imo.
    When freeing a man of charges could cost NZ dearly, it is laughable to say “there has been no pressure”.
    Just because one or perhaps two acts were illegal but allowed doesn’t make it right.
    His resident rights were violated twice. He has not broken NZ law.
    Andrew Little will give it a true fairness test, because he is brave and upright.
    I think you hope it will continue ’till J Collins is Minister of Justice Wayne. One word Wayne, Orivida. Judith called out the system twice over David Bain, with fewer reasons.
    Our Justice system has had a nasty narrow view, often created in political corners, and it is people like Andrew Little who correct these wrongs or re-weight judgements.
    I know Andrew will make a true evaluation, that will have fairness at its base.

    • cleangreen 6.1
      9 July 2018 at 3:04 pm

      Yep Patricia;

      ‘Power and control’ is the aim of these corporations here,

      Remember we will also be facing them in a legal dispuite later when we are in any trade agreement with a country where they operate inside of too.

      This is a taste of ‘corporate control over governments and commerce.’

  7. Treetop 7
    9 July 2018 at 1:46 pm

    When KDC home was raided this was a fishing expedition. The raid was deemed to be illegal.

    Is the extradition to the USA another fishing expedition?

    KDC was shut down and this is what was wanted by those who hold the copyright.

    Unless there is clear international law regarding being able to extradite on a specific cyber charge then KDC should not be extradited.

    There are a number of people who do not deserve to be in NZ yet they remain because they have not broken NZ law.

    I look forward to hearing what the outcome is from the Supreme Court of NZ.

  8. saveNZ 8
    9 July 2018 at 2:03 pm

    With substantial damages at stake, NZ interests should be to settle the case ASAP and that Dotcom is obviously a genius in his chosen field and could actually be creating jobs and wealth in this country, maybe some high paid jobs in Queenstown rather than another luxury tourist venture paying minimum wages !

    But funny how lawyers want to just keep those legal bills rolling in and NZ has turned into some cowardly nation that just does what we think China and the US want us to do and then what some of their corporations want them to do, which is pretty hard when they seem to be opposite …

    • Treetop 8.1
      9 July 2018 at 2:43 pm

      This matter should not have reached the point it has reached. To go bankrupt is not right either. By the time KDC has finished he probably will be bankrupt.

      You highlight a problem in NZ, the court takes too long to reach a decision and the cost is crippling or just not affordable to defend yourself.

      As well too many stuff ups by the police which only complicates the initial matter.

  9. Burton 9
    9 July 2018 at 4:08 pm

    Christopher Lopez Mentally ill inmate died while in prison

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drioPfvuwI4

    How US treats it’s prisoners.

  10. appleboy 10
    9 July 2018 at 4:52 pm

    This is bull shit.

    This is a civil copyright issue.

    Why did 72 armed police with guns and helicopters conduct a raid on a civil copyright matter?

    The search warrant was illegal

    The GCSB spied illegally on Dot Com, yet ‘evidence’ still Ok to use!

    The police illegally sent data clones to the USA against court orders.

    They denied KDC access to his data to provide contract and defence to cherry picked ‘one liners’ Crown law submitted.

    Chris Finlayson denied access to KDC’s data so he could defend himself.

    the Human Right Commission found Finlayson acted ILLEGALLY in denying this access.

    The police has said they can’t provide information held prior to 2013 “because it was not migrated to the new IT system”. FFS

    His NZ residence denial by Simon Power was over ruled by John ‘Pony Tail’ Key as a cock suck to Obama.

    This is a damn political trial – Key handed KDC on a plate from US pressure.

    USA wanted to make an example of KDC.

    The same file sharing mega did still goes on, on dozens of such the same ole sharing sites, oh and by the way Youtube is FULL of copyrighted material…

    This case is the high water marks of the worst political corruption in NZ history. makes me sick this is happening.

    Labour should expose exactly what happened here and consign Key and National to history for the stinking crooks they are. Do a deal with KDC to waive 6.8 Billion damages claim and expose John key’s stinking govt for lies and corruption and US dick sucking .

    If he gets deported I will abstain from voting Labour for the rest of my life.

    I will be ashamed of NZ over this if this extradition goes ahead.

    • Treetop 10.1
      9 July 2018 at 5:46 pm

      Looks like the final hope for any justice is the NZ Supreme Court.

      • patricia bremner 10.1.1
        9 July 2018 at 7:06 pm

        Why do you think the appeals to the Privy Council were axed? To be “in house.”
        The final straw came in 2010. So yes, now it is the NZ Supreme Court, and then the Minister of Justice, currently Andrew Little.

        Kim has, through fighting the tangled dirty skeins of “in house” linen, shown their cheating. .Sanctuary is correct that they hate he showed them up in all their lies.

        Watching John on a replay “Campbell Live” interview John Key about Dotcom you see his fury held back. .His eyes are revealing. His implausible explanations seem childish in hind sight. .We “See” him now, The emperor with no clothes or credibility. Just a liar, using his friends to take decisions which favoured his agenda.

        John Key could have “killed kittens and kept his popularity” according to Kim.
        His legacy? NZers can be spied on/extradited according to USA laws/hardly afford a home /poor or rotting infrastructure…… and so on. He’s Knighted!!!
        Kim made money through the internet, exposed uncomfortable truths. He is vilified spied on raided and charged!!

        Kim’s legacy. We are more aware of the 5 eyes countries and their spying network.
        We are now aware it costs a fortune to defend yourself against the State. and “It” can change the laws to cover the backside, if needed.

        It will indeed be a brave individual who sets up an inquiry into all of this. Especially interesting is who is the party/person who signed up NZ exposure to costs if we lose to Dotcom., leaving the USA clear and free?

        This is a poisoned chalice which may well end in Andrew’s lap.

      • aj 10.1.2
        11 July 2018 at 8:57 am

        Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as: intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.

        Law often has no relationship with justice, if justice was not the intention of writing the law in the first place.

    • Stuart Munro 10.2
      9 July 2018 at 8:36 pm

      + 100

    • James 10.3
      9 July 2018 at 9:55 pm

      Since you cannot even get it right that he is on criminal charges – the rest of your post is useless.

      • Richard Christie 10.3.1
        10 July 2018 at 6:47 pm

        Can somebody please spell it out for James as I’m not so good at single syllable explanations.

      • Appleboy 10.3.2
        11 July 2018 at 6:49 am

        For the simpleton…the law states IP’s cannot be held responsible for content uploaded by users. So the criminal charges are a bullshit piece of US over reach. The fucking yanks want a poster boy – and we had the mother of all poster boys in a Prime Minister who pulls waitresses pony tails for jollies. I can barely believe NZ was so stupid for so long in accepting Key in all his stupidity and lies.

    • Richard Christie 10.4
      10 July 2018 at 6:44 pm

      appleboy +100%

      except “If he gets deported I will abstain from voting Labour for the rest of my life”

      For me, Labour’s stance on TPP has already assured that.

  11. Tricledrown 11
    9 July 2018 at 6:18 pm

    No not necessarily if Dotcom goes to the US, their courts want to know if proper processes were followed.
    The reason they tried to take all his money is to stop KDC’s ability to get decent legal redress.
    But the US has plenty of appeal courts just like here it depends on how much money you have
    Keys meetings with studio exec’s the $360 million subsidy excetra all timed in together.
    John Banks lying over helicopter rides and cheques shows how low National will go.
    Panama papers another example of how much of a double dealer Key and National get up to.

  12. SPC 12
    9 July 2018 at 6:19 pm

    The world is a place where American corporates operate and pay little tax.

    And apparently the world finds it hard to get the US to agree to international arrangements that change this.

    But sure their corporate states laws/rules should have their reach all the same.

    This is what imperialism looks like.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1
      9 July 2018 at 6:33 pm

      +111

    • SaveNZ 12.2
      9 July 2018 at 7:19 pm

      exactly SPC. Only American pirate sites are allowed on the WWW is the precedent that the US wants to set….

      Only US pirates/storage sites such as You Tube (Google) are allowed and there are still plenty of pirate or storage sites out there… the heavy handedness and making it political is actually going to be the end of Hollywood supremacy and the US as the consumer is king now (aka Apple) and that approach aint working.

      Consumers are not prepared to accept a US only dominance. China, India etc and only US pirate and file sharing sites allowed… nope can’t see it.

      Apple tried a different approach with out smarting people with decent tech and pricing which is why iTunes is successful and Warners and Disney have nothing. Hollywood were too cheap and un innovative to keep ahead of the curve, with all their groping and sexual harassment not to mention their emails about Obama and the race issues and films he might be watching. The Hollywood movie industry seem to feel they are above the law and they own the US government and the industry and the actresses judging by ‘me too’ with their lobby groups and dominance. They have lost respect of consumers.

      Hollywood are even to cheap to pay their own legal costs because they knew without getting the corporate welfare of governments to do their job for them, they might lose and then have to pay out to Dotcom just like when You Tube won!

      Lucky they have a ‘Kiwi’ to make an example off and a lot of illegal government interference to buy the outcome.

      Apple have iTunes, because they were smart and won the hearts of consumers through good tech, not like Hollywood who think they can somehow control the web through having governments as their personal henchmen and US being the only ones allowed to have file sites rather than producing a product that reflects the times like Apple did with iTunes.

  13. barry 13
    9 July 2018 at 7:57 pm

    I think it stinks:

    Nothing he is accused of is a serious crime in NZ, therefore should not be used for extradition.

    There is no way he can get a fair trial in the US.

    I think we should deport him to Germany and leave it up to them to sort it out.

  14. infused 14
    9 July 2018 at 8:27 pm

    The de-dupe part is what I was pointing out on this site over and over again.

    He made new links to the same file. Takedowns only took down the URL, not the source file.

    If that had been done, I doubt Kim would have been touched.

    The other fact was, Megaupload had said the source file was deleted. This got discovered eventually by accident by copyright holders. The gig was up.

  15. weston 15
    9 July 2018 at 9:36 pm

    dot com didnt have a monopoly on the condition of wanting to be admired for being successful but an observer of public reaction to him in general would certainly think so !!!I think in the main he was found guilty of one of the worst associated crimes of all namely RICH and FAT .Key and his friends did a very good hatchet job on him as well and its to our shame that so many bought into that particular smear campaign imo

  16. Treetop 16
    11 July 2018 at 10:31 am

    It will be a decade by the time the NZ Supreme Court reaches a decision to extradite or not extradite. The stupidity and lies and bullshit criminal charges is the cause.

    The final cost is going to be millions which cold be used to house the homeless. I know that it is important to pay for justice.

    reply to @10.3.2

    • David Mac 16.1
      11 July 2018 at 10:44 am

      Without reverting to whataboutisim I have a hard job overlooking that his team made $175 million dollars a year selling stuff that wasn’t theirs.

      When I do include whataboutisim, I see a wave of different treatment for different folk when it comes to the ownership of intellectual, patent and copyright protected property. From Chinese military jets chokka with carbon copy Lockheed tech, to the freelance writer having his next year’s income swiped off his hard-drive.

  17. Guy Perry 17
    11 July 2018 at 11:34 am

    This matter is or was initially a battle of personalities between JK and KDC.

    The public need to do their own in-depth research on both of these people before offering comment.

    Ask yourself, who would sell out their country to the tune of 10,000 lost jobs simply for a commission and their own personal gain?
    And who previously worked in the US in a “convenient” role prior to being placed (rather pushed) into political power here in NZ?

    What similarities does the current Australian political power hold with what happened here?

    Go ask yourself!

    NZ is no more than another star on a striped flag and don’t kid yourselves that our legal system and politicians can ignore what it’s TRUE cabinet is requesting…..sadly!

    NZ has been sold already, it’s just that very few have actually worked that out.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.