[philippejara]

> A fair amount of “this is fine, governments enforce IP laws and that’s a public good” vibes in here, which is all a very reasonable perspective.

I'd say it would be a a reasonable perspective if his case was being tried where the offences actually took place and/or where he was a citizen of and not a country who refuses to give the same rights to non-citizens being tried there compared to citizens[1] and wasn't even where the offense took place. This is absolutely chilling for anyone who isn't an US citizen honestly.

[1]:https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511y42z1p7o

[fluoridation]

It's a mockery of jurisdiction. It's a joke that NZ would sell out its own citizens like that.

[rtsil]

> It's a joke that NZ would sell out its own citizens like that.

DotCom is not a NZ citizen, he's a resident.

[zaSmilingIdiot]

NZ is a member of 5 eyes IIRC, and so likely have various relations/cooperative agreements in place that make it easy(-ier) for justifying the handing of citizens over to another state.

[anothernewdude]

It's a joke that we allowed him to buy residency. I hope it was worth it for him, and only hope similar things happen to Peter Thiel.

[sandworm101]

>> tried where the offences actually took place

The general rule is that a crime takes place where the victim stands. Where the perpetrator stand is a potential secondary location. The alleged victims here were "standing" in the US and so the US is proceeding with the case.

Trials in a third location are extraordinarily rare. Only things like the ICC or some admiralty proceedings involve trials in a third location.

[fluoridation]

So if someone robs your house while you're out of the country, the crime would have taken place in whatever country you happened to be in at that time, right? That's how that would play out. Because if that's not the case it would imply that the house itself would be the victim.

I also think it's odd to talk about this being the "general rule" when there's plenty of crimes/infractions with no victim.