![]() |
Aardvark DailyThe world's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 30th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.Content copyright © 1995 - 2025 to Bruce Simpson (aka Aardvark), the logo was kindly created for Aardvark Daily by the folks at aardvark.co.uk |
![]() Please visit the sponsor! |
Apparently FBI agents have taken copies of evidence from Kim Dotcom's computers and sent it back to the USA without the approval or knowledge of the Crown.
Unfortunately for them, the justification they gave for doing so may just have shot their entire case out of the water.
What am I talking about?
Well it seems that when challenged over the legality of the move, the Crown's Lawyer John Pike told the court that sending copies of the evidence taken from DotCom's computers to the USA was not a breach of the Solicitor General's ruling because "that only covered 'original material', not copies".
So, in making this statement, it is clear that the Crown and the FBI themselves have shown that there is a massive distinction between an original work and a copy.
By highlighting this distinction, and effectively saying that a copy is not an original and therefore ought not be subject to the same laws as apply to an original -- they are striking at the very heart of the MPAA/RIAA's own assertion that unauthorised copying is theft.
Surely they can't have it both ways.
Either copying something is theft -- and therefore, by copying the data from Kim Dotcom's computers and sending it back to the USA after the court had ordered that the data was not to be remitted -- or, as the FBI and The Crown now seem to believe, copies of something are something completely different and not subject to the laws which might protect the original work.
Now I'm no lawyer but surely this has to be a powerful weapon for KD's defense to use when it comes to defining what constitutes copyright infringement and theft, and what doesn't.
I'm pretty sure that in the court of natural justice, the FBI has just blow its feet off over this matter -- let's hope that the law sees it the same way.
Then there is the request by KD's lawyers that they receive copies of the evidence, something that has been upheld by the judge -- who has given The Crown three weeks to comply.
The Crown is appealing that decision, saying that 3 weeks is not enough time, Crown lawyer Fergus Sinclair told the court that the scale of the task [copying] was simply too great -- yet obviously it's not that hard to run off a few copies for the FBI -- is it?
The other issue that The Crown and the FBI now have to be very careful of in this case is the fact that KD may soon become a "larger than life" icon of all that is wrong with our legal system and our relationship with the USA.
I can see the day when KD becomes the poster-boy for all those who wish to thumb their noses at the aging cronies within the RIAA/MPAA and parts of the political world that seem to be working together to try and protect their dated business and political models.
One thing's for sure -- if KD is ever extradited to the USA by NZ authorities, we'll need to be asking some very, very serious questions about the way this whole issue has been handled.
![]() Please visit the sponsor! |
Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines
Beware The Alternative Energy Scammers
The Great "Run Your Car On Water" Scam