Apart from the overall decision itself that the appellants are eligible for extradition, a few very interesting things that leapt out:
- We’re already starting to see the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dixon (Dixon v R  NZSC 147), that digital files are property. With that finding in hand, it now becomes a simple matter to find that “property”, when referred to in any provision of the Crimes Act, refers to digital material. So, in Dotcom, the High Court finds that the there would be a prima facie case under New Zealand law that the appellants have obtained property (the alleged infringing copies of films) by deception under section 240 of the Crimes Act 1961 and therefore that that provides a “pathway” for extradition. One wonders how long it will be before we see a civil action for conversion of digital files.
Digital files being property will be very useful in any future legal encounters where I get to question Mr Hager on the use of stolen property. And then making money from it. Read more »