

Dotcom judge quits the case - te_chris
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10820496

======
Joakal
More: Pro-Copyright Judges Never Drop Cases Over Conflicts, So Why Does
Megaupload Judge Have To Step Down?
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/00503119739/pro-
co...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/00503119739/pro-copyright-
judges-never-drop-cases-over-conflicts-so-why-does-megaupload-judge-have-to-
step-down.shtml)

A better translation of TPB here: Aftermath of The Pirate Bay Trial: Peter
Sunde’s Plea – In His Own Words - Falkvinge on Infopolicy.
[http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-
bay-...](http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-bay-trial-
peter-sundes-plea-in-his-own-words/)

~~~
rprasad
I imagine it had something to do with the judge saying that the "US is the
enemy", thus indicating that he could not impartially judge a case in which
the U.S. was the primary opposing litigant.

~~~
lurkinggrue
He didn't say that.

He was quoting a pogo comic:

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Pogo_-
_Earth_D...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Pogo_-
_Earth_Day_1971_poster.jpg)

Not "We have met the enemy and he is U.S."

------
jeza
Seems like the US want to abuse extradition here. If he's guilty of copyright
infringement, then they should be able to get him in NZ. Extradition should
only be for cases where someone is physically present in a country where they
commit a crime then later skip the country to avoid being caught.

~~~
powertower
> Extradition should only be for cases where someone is physically present in
> a country where they commit a crime then later skip the country to avoid
> being caught.

Not talking about MU or anyone/anything else in particular, but...

If you run a criminal enterprise that does the majority of its business in the
US, and you live overseas you can (and should be) subjugated to US laws.

Even for non-criminal enterprises, you don't get to play around with another
country, breaking its laws. Why should a criminal enterprise be treated
differently?

~~~
grecy
So millions of American women can be extradited to certain Arab nations
because they've posted photos online of themselves without their heads
covered, contrary to the local law.

By doing it on the internet, they are "exposing" themselves to millions of
people where that is illegal, and therefore should be extradited for it.

Even the passport photo of millions of American women is illegal in certain
countries... seeings that's an international document, surely they've broken
the law in those countries, no?

~~~
powertower
I don't see the similarity of a person posting pictures of self on facebook,
and a criminal enterprise knowingly and willfully generating revenue through
copyright crimes.

Really, I don't. Even if you ignore that some countries have extradition
treaties which spell out exactly at what level this can happen (btw, US and
Iran don't).

But if you love analogies, I'm sure I can come up with one even more
ridiculous, that would show my case.

~~~
grecy
My analogy is to show that extradition for breaking the law of country A while
being in country B is completely ridiculous.

We're all breaking the laws of countries we're not in this very second.

Maybe before the internet it was easier and made more sense. Now it's
completely insane.

------
ars
What the title does not make clear is the judge did this to himself.

You have to be careful when you are a judge, you're human so you probably have
a bias, but you need to keep it a secret.

~~~
mrich
I would not be totally shocked if there was some pressure involved, which led
him to make the original remarks to give him a plausible exit out of the case.

~~~
RawData
That was my first thought too....you don't just step down without being forced
to behind the scenes.

~~~
rprasad
You do if you do not want to be removed from the bench.

Judges who make explicit statements that indicate they cannot be impartial in
a case _currently before them_ but who do not remove themselves from such
cases usually find themselves disrobed and disbarred for violating their
ethical duties of impartiality. (UK standards are different from US standards,
but the duty of impartiality is generally the same.)

Saying that the US is "the enemy" is pretty much as close as you can get to
revealing an inability to be impartial.

------
grandpoobah
Call me a kook but I personally cannot rule out the possibility that he was
made to stand down.

~~~
adaml_623
I think we can safely assume that unlike the judges in the Pirate Bay case
some pressure was applied from above for him to stand aside.

Last I heard there was not going to be a need for an extradition hearing as Mr
Dotcom was volunteering to go to the US and stand trial as he was certain he
would be found not guilty in a courtroom.

~~~
ramblerman
> Last I heard there was not going to be a need for an extradition hearing as
> Mr Dotcom was volunteering to go to the US and stand trial as he was certain
> he would be found not guilty in a courtroom

Not quite. Dotcom has offered to voluntarily fly to the US in return for them
releasing a portion of his funds so he can mount a defence.

The likelyhood that the US will accept his deal is close to 0.

------
mwilcox
A recording of his comments can be heard here:
[http://sciblogs.co.nz/tosp/2012/07/13/podcast-the-fight-
for-...](http://sciblogs.co.nz/tosp/2012/07/13/podcast-the-fight-for-the-net/)

