Comment Re:Definition of enemy (Score 2) 469
I completely agree that the US extradition case against Dotcom is flawed, but your analogy is also flawed.
All of the crimes you listed only effect people within the country that the laws apply to. Copyright is different, particularly when applied to copying things via the internet.
The **AA could make the argument that by facilitating piracy of their content online, Dotcom was hurting their sales within the US, and in fact was using US servers to do it.
A more accurate analogy would therefore be if someone in NZ (where the drinking age is 18) was selling alcohol via the internet to 19yr olds in a US state where the drinking age is 21. He would technically be in violation of the law in the US, but not in NZ. So the question for the purpose of law is, because internet was used to conduct this transaction, where did the allegedly-illegal act take place? NZ or US?
I'd argue in my hypothetical case that the US would have grounds for blocking the transaction, but at the same time, the guy in NZ cannot be charged or extradited and would be free to continue to attempt his operations.
Of course all of this legal stuff goes out the window when you involve powerful lobbies and the ego of American government, which when combined can essentially create whatever result it is they are looking for regardless of the actual law.