Thanks, but it does need to be an indictable act, under the NZ criminal code. This looks rather like a civil copyright act, much like Canada's, and quite different from the US criminal one. (The US has two, one civil, one criminal).

Countries will extradite their citizens if they've been charged with a crime, but it has to be a crime in both countries, and it needs to be of some severity. Parking tickets aren't enough to get me extradited from Canada, even though not paying them is a misdemanor. Similarly, charging me with blasphemy in Iran and asking for me to extradited won't work either.

NZ needs to have made copyright infringement an indictable offence, and they need to have done so before Mr Dotcom was charged.

If not, and if they wish to get rid of him, they need to ensure somehow that he doesn't have a lawyer, and then hope he can't defend himself adequately.

Rightscorp is arguably afraid ISPs will refuse to cut off people under the DMCA unless a judge has ruled in a legitimate court proceeding that the person has infringed multiple times. They now propose to saddle ISPs with massive, expensive and interminable legal proceedings unless the ISP agrees to cut people off on mere accusation.

Lawyers often study "conflict of laws", where law A says "X is a crime" and B says "do X". Good legal draftsmen will therefor say something like "not withstanding A, do X", but not everyone is a good draftsman(/woman/shark). It would be amusing and very embarassing to charge a district attorney with possession of stolen property (;-))

Vote this up, folks!

It's arguably obtaining money upon a false pretense, which is criminal. The false pretense is that such a fee is lawful, much like a clause in a contract that says "you agree to spin straw into gold or provide Rumplestiltskin your first-born". Illegal since, well, fairy-tales.

That used to be how we built hospitals and paid for road improvements: they're called things like "local business improvement areas".

More correctly, they want to control the news. One man controlled roughly 1/3 of the news at one point, and pushed for his preferred party and leader. The leader face-planted on a seadoo and the party had to do an unfriendly takeover of another party (mine!) to get into power. The newspaper chain in question is barely alive any more.

Odd, all three parties at various times said the CRTC was in bed with the big corporations. The current government genuinely hit them with a clue-stick, mind you!

Right now, the government needs votes, and telecom behaviour has annoyed a large enough minority that they're worth campaigning to. Pitching to minorities has been a priority for the government since they got in, as they previously had been criticised as being composed entirely of white western farmers and oilmen.

He's probably on Rogers, where all of the above is trivially true.

This is a classic way to get a proponent of X into trouble: get them to say under what circumstances X would be breaking the law, and assert they were a proponent of breaking the law. Another is ordering someone not to do something legal, then charge them with disobedience. A third is to ask them if they had (ever) broken the law, then charge them with lying if they had but the statute of limitations had run out.

All are hard to defend against, as they're constructed half-truths. None addresses the propriety, truth or desirability of the original action, only the consequent, so a court can sometimes be tricked into ruling narrowly on the second part alone.