Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

Just a reminder that you can simultaneously be against the current copyright system in the US while also thinking Kim Dotcom is a criminal that deserves punishment. Too many people in this thread or forcing this into a false dichotomy. Flaws in the current system don't fully excuse his misdeeds many of which are unrelated to copyright.

Or to put it in another context, you can both be against the war on drugs while also thinking that El Chapo belongs in prison.

View on HN

I don't think El Chapo belongs in prison for drug-dealing though, I think he belongs in prison for murder, etc.

Has Kim Dotcom committed other crimes besides copyright infringement ones that the US plans to charge him with?

Your post hints at other "crimes".

Care to elaborate or post a link?

I couldn't find any documentation on the exact breakdown of the 12 of the 13 charges in this case that were approved for extradition, but here[1] is an article from 2017 that lists he is being charged with copyright infringement, money laundering, racketeering, and wire fraud.[2] It appears that the 1 that was thrown out was related to money laundering. That means there is still racketeering and wire fraud charges plus there could have been multiple money laundering charges in the original list.

This also doesn't include any of the shady behavior in which there were accusations of but weren't included in the legal case. Such as the staff of MegaUpload regularly rummaging through the files of users. That likely isn't technically a crime, but it is something that should certainly be frowned on by the HN community.

[2] - https://fr.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-internet-dotcom...

Sure, maybe he's a criminal and deserves punishment, but how about letting NZ decide that instead of the USA?

The internet has made things more complicated. You can commit crimes against the USA or its people without ever stepping foot inside the US. I don't know how you solve that. Dotcom has also been in court in NZ for the better part of a decade. It isn't like the laws in NZ or decisions my its people are irrelevant here.

Are you going to explain why? If somebody says that you can eat meat and still be a vegan, I want to know why.

What do you want me to explain? This is now the third time I have been asked practically the same question and I already responded to it the first time. He was basically running an organized crime racket. It is possible to think that is bad while also thinking the laws concerning one of the specific crimes at the heart of the matter is flawed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com