Editorial: US the place for Dotcom to argue case

Amid all the legal and political sideshows Kim Dotcom has provided since his arrest in 2012, we have rather lost sight of the significance of the case brought against him in the United States. Now that the substantial issue has been aired for his extradition, it ought to be clear this is a case with possibly far-reaching implications for law governing the internet worldwide. When the US extradition application was granted by the North Shore District Court on Wednesday, Dotcom's lawyer, Ron Mansfeld, said that if the prosecution prevails, websites from YouTube to Facebook would need to more carefully police their content. That remains to be seen, but certainly free access to commercial content could be curbed.

Judge Nevin Dawson has found prima facie breaches of copyright on a massive scale in Dotcom's operation. It is important to note that prima facie findings are not proven guilt; they mean simply that the evidence offered by the prosecution is strong enough to support his extradition. Dotcom and his co-accused offered alternative explanations for the alleged offences but these can be considered only at a trial. To avoid extradition, their lawyers had to show that the evidence against them was unsound, or the application faulty. They did not do so.

Dotcom and his co-accused should now take their explanations to a trial in the US. Unfortunately they are determined to stay here and take full advantage of our glacial legal system. They lodged an appeal against the district court decision the day it was delivered and Mr Mansfield said they would go all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Once they have exhausted those appeals, the Minister of Justice can make the extradition decision, which can also be appealed on issues of procedure.

It has taken nearly four years for the case to come this far. We may expect years more to pass at each stage of appeal. And all the while it is costing this country a fortune in court time and expenses.

The district court hearing took nine weeks and it followed countless procedural hearings since Dotcom's arrest in an almost paramilitary police operation in January 2012.

Along the way we saw court actions over peripheral issues involving that raid and exposed the misreading by the Government Communications Security Bureau of its statutory role when it assisted in the surveillance of someone with NZ residence. Dotcom has brought down one politician, John Banks, and extracted an apology from the Prime Minister on behalf of the GCSB. But he over-reached badly when he wanted to change the Government and put a proxy party into last year's election.

New Zealanders ought to be able to find Judge Dawson's 271-page decision online as easily as they can download movies and music and other copyrighted material. It explains the methods allegedly used by Dotcom's Megaupload site to store such material and even reward those who did so. It is said to have provided multiple URL links to the same material and when it received a take-down notice from a copyright owner, it is said to have removed only the offender's link, not the material.

It may be that these sort of practices are technically legal but it is in the interests of content providers and users that we find out. We cannot find out until Dotcom goes to the US and faces trial. He should go now.