<story><title>Kim Dotcom loses extradition case</title><url>http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/75407880/kim-dotcom-loses-extradition-case</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>takeda</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m still puzzled how he can be extradited if he is not US citizen and did not commit any crime on US soil.</text></item><item><author>downandout</author><text>He can still appeal the case to a higher court in New Zealand, and may have a chance there.  Copyright infringement isn&amp;#x27;t extraditable from New Zealand, because it&amp;#x27;s not a crime there.  To counteract this problem, the US also charged him with conspiracy to commit a crime and money laundering, which &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; extraditable offenses in New Zealand.  However, those charges are wholly dependent upon the main copyright infringement charge.  The conspiracy charge is based upon conspiring with others to commit copyright infringement, and the money laundering charge is based upon his use of the proceeds of an alleged crime - namely, copyright infringement.&lt;p&gt;Based upon this, a higher court may very well reverse the lower court&amp;#x27;s decision.  Kim Dotcom isn&amp;#x27;t going anywhere until he has exhausted all of his extradition appeals.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jeza</author><text>Hew Raymond Griffiths, had never been to the US. He was extradited from Australia to the US for something that isn&amp;#x27;t considered a crime in Australia.&lt;p&gt;The irony is this part:
&amp;quot;Griffiths finally returned to Australia on 2 March 2008, after 5 weeks as an illegal alien in the US immigration detention system following his release from prison on 26 January 2008 (Australia Day). A condition of his repatriation to Australia was that he never again re-enter the United States of America, a country he had never visited before being extradited to it.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Hew_Raymond_Griffiths&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Hew_Raymond_Griffiths&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Kim Dotcom loses extradition case</title><url>http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/75407880/kim-dotcom-loses-extradition-case</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>takeda</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m still puzzled how he can be extradited if he is not US citizen and did not commit any crime on US soil.</text></item><item><author>downandout</author><text>He can still appeal the case to a higher court in New Zealand, and may have a chance there.  Copyright infringement isn&amp;#x27;t extraditable from New Zealand, because it&amp;#x27;s not a crime there.  To counteract this problem, the US also charged him with conspiracy to commit a crime and money laundering, which &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; extraditable offenses in New Zealand.  However, those charges are wholly dependent upon the main copyright infringement charge.  The conspiracy charge is based upon conspiring with others to commit copyright infringement, and the money laundering charge is based upon his use of the proceeds of an alleged crime - namely, copyright infringement.&lt;p&gt;Based upon this, a higher court may very well reverse the lower court&amp;#x27;s decision.  Kim Dotcom isn&amp;#x27;t going anywhere until he has exhausted all of his extradition appeals.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lettergram</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m left scratching my head at this as well. I&amp;#x27;m assuming (without reading into it) they are arguing that it was U.S. copy righted material that was taken, and distributed on U.S. soil (i.e. the internet).&lt;p&gt;Julian Assange faces similar offense[1], though in this case they are claiming national security as opposed to copy right infringement.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Julian_Assange&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Julian_Assange&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>