Dotcom’s Extradition Hearing Will Be Live Streamed

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It looks like Kim Dotcom's extradition hearing will be live streamed on YouTube with a few caveats. The video will have a 20 minute delay, it will not stay online after the hearing and comments will be disabled.

Kim Dotcom's request for his extradition hearing to be live streamed on the Internet has been granted by a New Zealand High Court judge. Beginning tomorrow, proceedings will be broadcast live on YouTube, despite protests from the United States that the stream could prejudice Dotcom's criminal trial in the U.S. should he be extradited.
 
And even like that, he will be unlawfully found guilty, given that someone at hollywood paid handsomely for his head.
 
Of course it will stay online... someone will record it and the comments on that video will be a boon to the Kleenex company.
 
live with 20 minute delay? where are they broadcasting from, the moon?

enough time to censor anything you don't want getting out, rite?
 
"This will ensure that the court has the opportunity to suppress anything deemed unfit for public consumption." lol what kind of court is this?

 
So, when can we expect to see the heads of Google in court for all the pirated shows that are on Google Drive?
 
wizdum said:
So, when can we expect to see the heads of Google in court for all the pirated shows that are on Google Drive?
Click to expand...

Never, they are an american company, which provides direct access to all their files and info to our beloved government.

Think about it, the only difference between dropbox, box, google drive and mega is one was not american and was very successful.
 
Megaupload had specific problems, not that it wasn't American. First, they virtually always ignored DMCA infringement notices, so they didn't have safe harbor protections*. Next, Megaupload employees were loading pirated content onto Megaupload. There were also problems with Megaupload since it was a large-scale commercial site profiting from knowingly facilitating piracy. Kim Dotcom tried to work around those problems in Mega by (attempting) to keep it cleaner, but the same problems continued.

*Kim Dotcom had "novel" interpretations of copyright infringement, which he was completely wrong about.

Oh please, there's a difference between copying your media onto different devices or loaning out a copy to a friend or family member, and knowingly profiting from large scale piracy. No one but the owner of the movie or game or whatever else that was being pirated on Megaupload has a right to distribute it. Geez, people act like petulant 10 year olds over piracy.
 
pxc said:
Megaupload had specific problems, not that it wasn't American. First, they virtually always ignored DMCA infringement notices, so they didn't have safe harbor protections*. Next, Megaupload employees were loading pirated content onto Megaupload. There were also problems with Megaupload since it was a large-scale commercial site profiting from knowingly facilitating piracy. Kim Dotcom tried to work around those problems in Mega by (attempting) to keep it cleaner, but the same problems continued.

*Kim Dotcom had "novel" interpretations of copyright infringement, which he was completely wrong about.

Oh please, there's a difference between copying your media onto different devices or loaning out a copy to a friend or family member, and knowingly profiting from large scale piracy. No one but the owner of the movie or game or whatever else that was being pirated on Megaupload has a right to distribute it. Geez, people act like petulant 10 year olds over piracy.
Click to expand...

Quick link for you, patriot.

Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think | Center for Internet and Society
 
pxc said:
Megaupload had specific problems, not that it wasn't American. First, they virtually always ignored DMCA infringement notices, so they didn't have safe harbor protections*. Next, Megaupload employees were loading pirated content onto Megaupload. There were also problems with Megaupload since it was a large-scale commercial site profiting from knowingly facilitating piracy. Kim Dotcom tried to work around those problems in Mega by (attempting) to keep it cleaner, but the same problems continued.

*Kim Dotcom had "novel" interpretations of copyright infringement, which he was completely wrong about.

Oh please, there's a difference between copying your media onto different devices or loaning out a copy to a friend or family member, and knowingly profiting from large scale piracy. No one but the owner of the movie or game or whatever else that was being pirated on Megaupload has a right to distribute it. Geez, people act like petulant 10 year olds over piracy.
Click to expand...

Megaupload created a system where verified copyright owners could simply post a megaupload link into a form and have it taken down, with no verification required. They did not profit from piracy any more than Google does, they charged for larger storage space, just like Google, DropBox, etc. Lastly, The company is headquartered and the CEO lives in a country that is not the US. US Law should not apply there.
 
wizdum said:
Megaupload created a system where verified copyright owners could simply post a megaupload link into a form and have it taken down, with no verification required. They did not profit from piracy any more than Google does, they charged for larger storage space, just like Google, DropBox, etc. Lastly, The company is headquartered and the CEO lives in a country that is not the US. US Law should not apply there.
Click to expand...
That is objectively not true, like none of it.

The problem with the link reporting is that it didn't delete the files. It merely blocked the URL, due to the optimizations* used by Megaupload to save space by not duplicating files. For example, if a file was uploaded 10 times, it would never be deleted unless all 10 links were reported. Describing that as a takedown is completely disingenuous.

The model that Megaupload used was based on selling access (bandwidth/speed and extra space) specifically due to the draw of mass copyright infringement hosted on its servers. People storing small files, as often claimed, would have little to no reason to buy anything from Megaupload. Comparing that to Google's model is quite silly.

Copyright protection is included in virtually every treaty the US has with allies. Plus that doesn't excuse infringement under the local laws of that country, which was compounded by the takedown notices often coming from regional offices of the company being infringed upon.

*lol, there's specific conversations between Megaupload employees about evading takedowns, and this was just one of the methods
 
pxc said:
That is objectively not true, like none of it.

The problem with the link reporting is that it didn't delete the files. It merely blocked the URL, due to the optimizations* used by Megaupload to save space by not duplicating files. For example, if a file was uploaded 10 times, it would never be deleted unless all 10 links were reported. Describing that as a takedown is completely disingenuous.

The model that Megaupload used was based on selling access (bandwidth/speed and extra space) specifically due to the draw of mass copyright infringement hosted on its servers. People storing small files, as often claimed, would have little to no reason to buy anything from Megaupload. Comparing that to Google's model is quite silly.

Copyright protection is included in virtually every treaty the US has with allies. Plus that doesn't excuse infringement under the local laws of that country, which was compounded by the takedown notices often coming from regional offices of the company being infringed upon.

*lol, there's specific conversations between Megaupload employees about evading takedowns, and this was just one of the methods
Click to expand...

Why is that not true? Why should my personal music backup be deleted because someone else uploaded the same songs and posted the download link publicly? What you described is how every CDN in the world works. If they broke local laws, they should be punished by local courts, not extradited. Specific employee conversations are not the responsibility of the company. what proof do you have that only pirates want more storage space online?
 
Regardless of your stance on piracy and Megaupload, I wouldn't try to paint Kim Dotcom as your white knight, out protecting your internet freedoms. Take a look at his past history outside of this case.
 
Bandalo said:
Regardless of your stance on piracy and Megaupload, I wouldn't try to paint America as your white knight, out protecting your internet freedoms. Take a look at his past history outside of this case.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.
 
grtitan said:
Fixed that for you.
Click to expand...

Again, regardless of your opinions of even America, don't paint Mr. Dotcom as a hero either. The guy has pretty much been a scam artist his whole life. Chased out of two other countries already in fact. (neither of which was the US)
 
Bandalo said:
Regardless of your stance on piracy and Megaupload, I wouldn't try to paint Kim Dotcom as your white knight, out protecting your internet freedoms. Take a look at his past history outside of this case.
Click to expand...

Oh, he's not a hero. He's an arrogant asshole with a superiority complex, but he still has rights. His past has no bearing on this case.
 
wizdum said:
Oh, he's not a hero. He's an arrogant asshole with a superiority complex, but he still has rights. His past has no bearing on this case.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the copyright stuff might not hold up as grounds for extradition, but the money laundering charges will.
 
Bandalo said:
I'm guessing the copyright stuff might not hold up as grounds for extradition, but the money laundering charges will.
Click to expand...
So, like every patriot here, you already found him guilty just because he is a douchebag yet, I'm pretty sure that you are not one bit upset at the fact that no one person went to jail after the 2008 real state robbery or how Hillary is doing everything she wants in all kind of ilegal ways and yet, she is still secured to be the next president.

Talk about double standards.
 
grtitan said:
So, like every patriot here, you already found him guilty just because he is a douchebag yet, I'm pretty sure that you are not one bit upset at the fact that no one person went to jail after the 2008 real state robbery or how Hillary is doing everything she wants in all kind of ilegal ways and yet, she is still secured to be the next president.

Talk about double standards.
Click to expand...

Don't presume too much. I also happen to assume there's a lot of illegal stuff done in real estate and the stock market here, and wish they'd send some of those bankers to jail. I'm disgusted with what Hillary has gotten away with, and appalled that she's likely going to be elected anyway.

The guy has a long history of exactly this kind of thing (securities fraud, illegal operations, not paying fines, computer hacking, fleeing the country, bribing officials, etc, etc). Given a lot of the evidence that's already been presented, he KNEW what he was doing was illegal, he just thought he could get away with it due to the complexity of extradition.

The whole thing will be a mess regardless. The courts could produce video evidence that the guy pirated every game and movie known to man, and eats babies on the side, and there'd be plenty of internet justice warriors convinced he did no wrong and was just railroaded by hollywood's cash. Everyone else is convinced this is some elaborate test, and they'll start coming after every individual in every foreign country for copying movies after this plays out.

The guy is a douchbag, and probably guilty. (I don't have to PROVE squat, I'm just a dude on the internet). The RIAA and MPAA are both organizations full of douchbags willing to screw anyone and anything to hold onto a single dollar and their badly outmoded business model. Both sides of the case are dicks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top