The US already seized all his assets, and even denied him funds to defend himself, claiming he was a fugitive from justice (even though he hadn't gone anywhere). They also suggested that if funds were used to pay legal expenses, then those reimbursed (even US legal experts) could be considered part of the "criminal conspiracy". Moreover, they seized all the servers the business used to operate their business, not just infringing content, and then refused to maintain those servers, even for the purpose of preserving evidence Dotcom and co could use to defend themselves in the US. They don't want to sue him, because they already have everything. They want him, in a US prison, probably for the rest of his life.

IIRC, he was a "fugitive from justice" because he refused to fly to the States to defend himself in court actions there.

Which is a pretty weird definition of "fugitive", but it apparently meets the legal criteria.

I had a friend who had a lot of his thesis research backed up to Megaupload. He ended up losing all of it.

Sure there was a lot of copyrighted material, but there was some legitimate content owned by US customers that's now gone.

First, trusting a site that existed primarily to facilitate illegal content exchange to hold your critical data seems really naive. Second, if he lost his data because Megaupload went down, that's not a backup. That's the only copy. This isn't just naive anymore.

Maybe a group of 2-3 judges in an appellate court will decide that protecting democracy is more important than "whoring out" (excuse my language) to US interests. It's a slippery slope, and all you need is one precedent.

I don't like the guy at all, but this is just unacceptable in every way. Pathetic performance by the US really, if you can't even take on someone in a correct and ethical way, on equal footing.

These farcical legal contortions to allow extradition are an embarrassment to New Zealand. Sadly, though, my American experience suggests that it's something most people will just slowly get used to. Eventually, the idea that the rule of law applies even in cases where powerful corporate lobbies are on one side, and there are none on the other side, starts to seem quaint.

Although I confess I don't fully understand why American corporate interests can throw around such weight in New Zealand -- in this judgement, or in the original paramilitary raid on Dotcom's home, either.

What's the hidden leverage?

> What's the hidden leverage?

Joe Biden is good friends with Chris Dodd[1] who is (was?) the president of the MPAA[2]. Kim Dotcom had this to say previously[3]:

"Best friend of MPAA's Chris Dodd > Joe Biden. Former lawyer of Joe Biden > US Attorney Neil MacBride. Connect the Dodds"

So it seems that a former Senator turned lobbyist used his connection to the former US vice president to pull strings and convince the NZ government that Dotcom deserved a Pablo Escobar style raid on his home.

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-is-a-big-fan-of-chris-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd

[3] https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/280810245209587712

The charges are often pretty shaky, by they threaten you with decades of prison time if you don't plead guilty. Most people agree because they're rather the certainty of a few years of probation or a year of house arrest than the possibility 20 years in prison.

The big one there is Wetta though. That's one reason the MPAA carries so much weight there. (Wetta is a shit shop btw. I wouldn't suggest taking their contracts. They work people 80+ hours a week during a production cycle. Unless you really love your work, it's a terrible environment).

This could be an interesting strategy to force the US to abide by international human rights treaties. You may not be able to take the U.S. to court over human rights violations, but the judiciary in other countries could start refusing to extradite people to the U.S., thus getting the U.S. government to take the issue more seriously. Of course, this would require that the judges in other countries kind of all agree to do this.

Having said that, what I've heard about the federal prison system makes me think that a coupe of injections and a permanent nap might actually be more humane. /s

Question to the legal experts here: Assuming he manages to board a German ship and to enter international waters (while officially not allowed to leave NZ). Would this be sufficient, or would international treaties allow NZ or the US to intercept that ship?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_...

> federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts, which increased Swartz's maximum criminal exposure to 50 years of imprisonment and $1 million in fines.[13][101][102] During plea negotiations with Swartz's attorneys, the prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison, if Swartz would plead guilty to 13 federal crimes.

Here's one that walks through the process:

https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-s...

Here's another, more hyperbolic one, showing how a claimed "facing 67 years" turns out to be more like "facing 24 months, and probably less than that":

https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

But the short version is that describing a criminal case as "facing up to 50 years" is like describing a lottery ticket as "worth up to 50 million dollars", and you should probably believe both statements about equally until the sentencing happens (for the criminal case) or the winning numbers are drawn (for the lottery ticket).

As you would expect most don't take that gamble.

Also, I assume the multiple counts issue also applies to Germany and other countries, so the US penalties aren't necessarily that much worse. (Well, 10 years is much worse than 5 years, but it isn't decades worse.)

If there are seperate trials (even for totally seperate crimes), the sentences are also combined as per above at the later trial (unless the former sentence was already executed).

As far as I know this is not unusual worldwide. Certainly other European countries use a similar system.

[1]: Wikipedia tells me that the US system doesn't ask that question at all. I know absolutely nothing about copyright cases in particular but e.g. starting a filesharing client that distributes many files to many people is still a single criminal act in Germany (civil law is different of course).

If it was an unbiased roll of the dice that would be one thing, and the average and the distribution would be meaningful. But when it's arbitrary it doesn't matter what anyone else got, only what you'll get. And if you have any complaints about your treatment, etc, you're immediately in the full-penalty group.

Everything I've read says the judge is the one who applies the sentencing guidelines. Prosecuting attorneys don't sentence people, as far as I'm aware.

But yeah, after that it's all the judge.

I'm pretty much in the camp that the DA would fuck you up and the police and judge would all be in on it. Try telling a cop what the law is, especially if you're right...

No idea how it works if he's extradited and the US tries to prosecute him for the copyright infringement cases though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case which links the actual legal documents