At the very center of the US Government\u2019s case against Dotcom and former colleagues Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk, is the notion that the quartet engaged in criminal copyright infringement. Indeed, it was stated on numerous occasions that their case is the biggest copyright infringement case of all time.<\/p>\n
However, in his 363-page ruling (pdf<\/a>)<\/em>, Justice Gilbert found that there is no equivalent copyright crime in New Zealand that would allow Dotcom and his co-defendants to be transferred to the United States under the extradition treaty.<\/p>\n \u201cOne of the central issues in the case is whether copyright infringement by digital online communication of copyright protected works to members of the public is a criminal offense in New Zealand under the Copyright Act,\u201d an announcement from the Court reads.<\/p>\n \u201cThe High Court has held that it is not, contrary to the conclusion reached in the District Court. The appellants have therefore succeeded with one of the main planks of their case.\u201d<\/p>\n While this might initially sound like the best possible news for Dotcom and his colleagues (and it may yet prove useful), that\u2019s not the full picture. The US Government wants to extradite the quartet to face trial on a total 13 counts, which include allegations of conspiracy to commit racketeering as well as money laundering and wire fraud.<\/p>\n So, while the copyright infringement charges have now been ruled out as grounds for extradition, the other charges remain.<\/p>\n In today\u2019s ruling, the High Court found that while the District Court\u2019s decision of December 2015 was flawed in detail, its conclusion that the extradition of Dotcom and his colleagues can go ahead still stands, \u201cbecause there are available pathways for extradition\u201d on each count.<\/p>\n \u201c[T]he High Court has confirmed that Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk, Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato (the appellants) are eligible for extradition under section 24 of the Extradition Act 1999,\u201d the Court\u2019s summary reads.<\/p>\n According to Justice Gilbert, the core of the case deals with a conspiracy to defraud \u2013 an extraditable offense \u2013 but in comments this morning, Dotcom said that even that shouldn\u2019t be applicable.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m no longer getting extradited for Copyright. We won on that. I\u2019m now getting extradited for a law that doesn\u2019t even apply,\u201d he wrote<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that copyright charges can\u2019t be fraud charges. Let\u2019s just ignore that minor detail over here in New Zealand.\u201d<\/p>\n In a statement, Dotcom\u2019s barrister Ron Mansfield said that having won the copyright infringement argument, it is \u201cextremely disappointing\u201d to have a negative outcome overall, but all is not lost.<\/p>\n Supporting Dotcom in his assertion that the US Supreme Court has ruled that copyright infringement is not fraud, he explained that the situation in New Zealand doesn\u2019t support it either.<\/p>\n \u201cThe High Court has accepted that Parliament made a clear and deliberate decision not to criminalize this type of alleged conduct by internet service providers, making them not responsible for the acts of their users,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cFor the Court to then permit the same conduct to be categorized as a type of fraud in our view disrupts Parliament\u2019s clear intent. The High Court decision means that Parliament\u2019s intended protection for internet service providers is now illusory. That will be a concern for internet service providers and impact on everyone\u2019s access to the internet.\u201d<\/p>\n It will be of little surprise to learn that despite this ruling, the battle isn\u2019t over yet. Mansfield confirms that this \u201cpolitically charged and misunderstood case\u201d will now head off to the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n \u201cWe remain confident that this last point, which would prevent extradition in this complex and unprecedented legal case, will be resolved in Kim\u2019s favor in a manner consistent with Parliament\u2019s intent, international law and, importantly one might think, the United States\u2019 own law,\u201d he concludes.<\/p>\n So what next for this epic case?<\/p>\n In the short term, it\u2019s expected that both sides will challenge aspects of Justice Gilbert\u2019s ruling at the Court of Appeal. Depending on the outcome there, the case could conceivably move to the Supreme Court and from there into the hands of the Minister of Justice. All of that could take another two years \u2013 or more.<\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"