British Student Loses Extradition Battle Over Copyright Violation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Ignoring none of this being committed on anything to do with the US (apart from the .com suffix, which is just stupid), doesn't Google do the exact same thing? Along with every other search engine? I mean, guess what happens if I type in "*GAME NAME* torrent" and click search.

"Hey Gordon if you see USA tell them fuck you!"

Seriously though, this is cruel just because you have a .com prefix you can come under the states jurisdiction? This and SOPA are excellent points of the US trying to police the world. I don't have anything against the fine citizens of the US just their government.

I hate the US...

- How to visit the USA without any documents, visas and stuff ?
Host a torrent site.

Rednog:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the sheer ignorance of the "You can't be charged with a crime unless you committed it in that particular country."
Seriously has no one heard of international copyright agreements and copyright infringement laws? You know the ones where a bunch of countries came together and agreed to uphold the other's copyrights?
But if you think otherwise I invite you to start mass producing your own iPads and selling them in your respective nation; because well they're and American company so screw them right?
Seriously this isn't a question of America playing freaking world police, its a case of the guy broke in one country's mind some copyright violations, the country he is located in is like well we don't really have an answer to trial this guy. But according to agreements the other country has the legal right to go after the guy; thus the country (UK) allowing the guy to be extradited.
If you have a problem with this then go to your government and petition them to abolish the trade agreements (hint no one is going to take you seriously).

Seriously, this guy made a profit over someone else's work; seriously 15k a month and the site was up for how long? And the people suing him are doing it according to the law and yet its a case of screw the victim?

I'm curious if this is just another case of bash America because you can, if this took place between two other countries everyone would probably be like, eh whatever. But omg it is the USA the devil of the world who is oppressing us every second of our lives!!!

I got crapped on in a different thread for suggesting the same as you. These copyright agreements have been around since before the internet. Just dropping this line to say I'm in your corner before the feces gets dumped on you as well.

emeraldrafael:

Grouchy Imp:

emeraldrafael:
Yeah, not to offend anybody, but right now, britains abit higher on the totem pole than Spain. Spain is looking to go the way of greece and has never really been know for its great stability and ability to roll with the big boys. I would think Britain could put a foot down, but if they choose not to, then thats their problem and says more about that country than the one trying to "police the world".

which if you read the thread you'd see I said the same thing.

I saw where you were coming from with your first post fella; namely that the UK shouldn't have just rolled over and given in. And maybe we shouldn't have. What I was trying to imply with my post is that we probably didn't just roll over - that there was an "or else" tagged onto the end of the US request for extradition. Hence the Spain, Sweden and Holland news stories.

I fully agree that if we had a choice we should have stuck up for one of our own. The point I was raising was: were we given a choice?

I have yet to see. Now, I will agree with you, waht the US did to spain was... going too far. But spain is just one of those countries that needs help, just because they dont seem... stable.

If it comes out the US did try to do something the same way it did to spain, my opinion will likely change. Honestly, I do get tired of the US doing this, but really, we're in a position to, and no one is really stopping us from it. Any country of power does when they have power. Spain did it, Britain did it (and for the longest time too), france to an extent, and after the US loses its dominance to china china will do it too. Its how the world works.

The Spanish, French and British empires imposed their laws on their subject provinces and imposed economic sanctions against their enemies - the question is which of those two does the US see us? /joke

What I mean is the US seems to be going about pretty heavy-handed with countries they're supposed to have good relations with. We're on your side, cut us some slack.

Go away, US. Not your servers, nor your country. Back off.

Any domain ending in .com or .net falls under US rights? That's ridiculous.

Duol:
Just because there is an international treaty or agreement does not extend jurisdiction for countries that are a party to it. Just because both the countries involved have agreed to a IP treaty doesn't mean that the one country has jurisdiction to prosecute all infractions of the agreement everywhere in the world. Not to mention the fact that I doubt the UK is a party to a treaty that makes what he has done illegal, otherwise there would be English law against it, and UK authorities would be prosecuting him.

The UK has an extradition treaty with the US, that's what's being used.

You're responding to the wrong poster. I actually understand this. I talked about this already. If you can't understand that, then that's your problem. If terms like "personal jurisdiction" vs. "subject matter jurisdiction" confuse you, that's really not my problem. If the concept of "extradition treaties" start to sound a lot like "intellectual property treaties", then I really can't help you. If the words "fucking weird" mean nothing to you, then, I'm sorry, but that one's up to you to figure out.

Woodsey:
I mean, guess what happens if I type in "*GAME NAME* torrent" and click search.

Men in Black kick in your door, and start babbling about the "quantum convergence of ethics," or asking if you have any chocolate Twinkies?

Grouchy Imp:

emeraldrafael:
...

The Spanish, French and British empires imposed their laws on their subject provinces and imposed economic sanctions against their enemies - the question is which of those two does the US see us? /joke

What I mean is the US seems to be going about pretty heavy-handed with countries they're supposed to have good relations with. We're on your side, cut us some slack.

and to think, if only sopa had been been passed

wow.. I cant even think that in good conscious.

Eh, I think we were justa bit emboldened by the whole SOPA thing really. This will probably get thrown out as more people complain and voice their opinions. Or at least im hoping so, but then again i dont care for the Congress in office as a whole right now.

DaHero:

It is, no really.

In the U.S. a man can rob a house, get injured by the owner, and sue the owner of the house for damages, and get away with it. Even if he doesn't, his case of assault would be seen as a higher case than an attempted robbery, thus delaying his case for well on 10 years, while he COULD be figuring out a way to leave the country or go into hiding.

I've seen videos of convicted rapists being executed by the victims relatives in third world countries, doesn't sound like anything in the US for the past 60+ years. If the US had laws making homosexuality or drug possession punishable by death or caning women caught drinking beer then you'd have an argument. Otherwise you're just overreacting. You can sue for anything in the US, doesn't mean you'll get anything. Not to mention most companies will get you a small (to them at least) sum of cash just to fuck off and quit wasting their time in court.

The Cheezy One:
Definitely a tricky one. While he is most certainly guilty, I don't think he should be extradited on such a (comparatively) weak basis - "he's never been to the states and TVShack didn't use US servers" should mean he can only be prosecuted by more relevant authorities - would it be that different if he had chosen a different suffix?

On the other hand, being a UK citizen myself, I am almost definitely biased, and the question over where US jurisdiction begins and ends has been going on for a long time. I have also not studied internet law, just a few months on contract and delict/tort (negligence and compensation) law. Going into criminal law next semester, so I may one day have actual authority on what I babble on here!

albino boo:

mad825:

TVShack didn't use US servers.

Bingo! the crime was committed on the country in which the website was hosted on the server. Not in the US.Any ending domains has no relevance as any organisation/register may have any domains especially .com and .net because there are no restrictions of use.

We all know why this is happening, the UK government doesn't have any balls to stand-up against the US in case it may damage this "special relationship".

If you hide behind legal technicalities to make money out of advertising piracy don't be surprised when the big boys find some other legal technicalities to drop on you from a great height. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

^ Exactly. He was making ~$46,000 a MONTH benefiting from pirated material. He should be able to afford a good lawyer in the US.

Jacob Iott:
Is there anything we can do about this? Like raise money to pay his bail or something?

He was making a lot of people's yearly salary PER MONTH benefiting off of pirated material. He can pay his own bleeping legal bills, trust me.

emeraldrafael:

Grouchy Imp:

emeraldrafael:
...

The Spanish, French and British empires imposed their laws on their subject provinces and imposed economic sanctions against their enemies - the question is which of those two does the US see us? /joke

What I mean is the US seems to be going about pretty heavy-handed with countries they're supposed to have good relations with. We're on your side, cut us some slack.

and to think, if only sopa had been been passed

wow.. I cant even think that in good conscious.

Eh, I think we were justa bit emboldened by the whole SOPA thing really. This will probably get thrown out as more people complain and voice their opinions. Or at least im hoping so, but then again i dont care for the Congress in office as a whole right now.

Well fingers crossed for a reasonable resolution fella. Personally for me the real telling point will be how much money is put behind the case for the prosecution.

I feel really bad for this guy, but hopeful he'll wind up being the Rosa Parks of torrent linkers. That is, what wakes up US citizens in general to the idea that something just isn't right here.

Of course, for that to happen, his case would need mainstream media coverage, and they've got vested interests in ensuring it doesn't get that.

I hate to say it, but I think this kid is in serious trouble. Given the track record for courts in the US in regards to these kinds of websites, the extradition might as well have been finding the kid guilty.

tangoprime:

Jacob Iott:
Is there anything we can do about this? Like raise money to pay his bail or something?

He was making a lot of people's yearly salary PER MONTH benefiting off of pirated material. He can pay his own bleeping legal bills, trust me.

He was making that from a search site that kept itself to a defined niche. That shouldn't be a crime, and may even be a freedom of speech issue in the US.

The offenders are those who uploaded the copyright material. Those are the ones that should be getting hoisted off to American gulags.

Shadie777:
Sorry to repeat myself, but I believe that the government need to know our displeasure.
If you are a UK citizen please sign this if you want to.
We need to change this one-sided Extradition Act. Epetitions have been successful in the past, so this could work.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22467

Edit:

albino boo:

If you hide behind legal technicalities to make money out of advertising piracy don't be surprised when the big boys find some other legal technicalities to drop on you from a great height. If you can't do they time don't do the crime.

It isn't a crime in the UK. I'm also pretty sure that Google does this on a larger scale.

I tried to sign but I am not a UK citizen.

albino boo:

mad825:

TVShack didn't use US servers.

Bingo! the crime was committed on the country in which the website was hosted on the server. Not in the US.Any ending domains has no relevance as any organisation/register may have any domains especially .com and .net because there are no restrictions of use.

We all know why this is happening, the UK government doesn't have any balls to stand-up against the US in case it may damage this "special relationship".

If you hide behind legal technicalities to make money out of advertising piracy don't be surprised when the big boys find some other legal technicalities to drop on you from a great height. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

In the US, it's illegal to drink if you're younger than 21, right? That age is 18 in Sweden for example. Does it sound sane to you that I could be charged for a crime in the US despite never being there, because I'm a 20 year old drinking in Sweden?

We can argue about whether he deserves this or not as much as we like (I'm sure his ill gotten revenue can pay the legal fees required to get him off and he'll be back to square one), the main point I believe of this is to have an example made.

We all know the issues surrounding piracy websites like Pirate Bay, immune to prosecution because it's a Swedish website, cause for a lot of IP holders.

What should be more of a focus, is that if this does go through, and this gentleman is sentenced - Sweden et al could potentially stop being a safe haven for Piracy hosting and a big shake up will ensue.

So when presented in this manner, as much as it is a rather poor situation for an individual to be in, potentially it will have great and good effects as a whole.

Unless you like to pirate property...

Acrisius:

albino boo:

mad825:

Bingo! the crime was committed on the country in which the website was hosted on the server. Not in the US.Any ending domains has no relevance as any organisation/register may have any domains especially .com and .net because there are no restrictions of use.

We all know why this is happening, the UK government doesn't have any balls to stand-up against the US in case it may damage this "special relationship".

If you hide behind legal technicalities to make money out of advertising piracy don't be surprised when the big boys find some other legal technicalities to drop on you from a great height. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

In the US, it's illegal to drink if you're younger than 21, right? That age is 18 in Sweden for example. Does it sound sane to you that I could be charged for a crime in the US despite never being there, because I'm a 20 year old drinking in Sweden?

If you're doing it at a US embassy or consulate in Sweden, then it doesn't sound insane. Even if it's shaky, and will probably not work here in the US (especially with the kind of lawyer this young man should be able to afford), there was jurisdiction shown. He violated a US law, and the US demonstrated enough for the British government that it was done under their jurisdiction.

Question for the people who don't see anything wrong with this: do you think Saudi Arabia should be able to demand US citizens who have committed adultery be sent over for execution? Should China be able to demand we send over anyone who speaks out in favor of Tibet?

Kwil:

tangoprime:

Jacob Iott:
Is there anything we can do about this? Like raise money to pay his bail or something?

He was making a lot of people's yearly salary PER MONTH benefiting off of pirated material. He can pay his own bleeping legal bills, trust me.

He was making that from a search site that kept itself to a defined niche. That shouldn't be a crime, and may even be a freedom of speech issue in the US.

The offenders are those who uploaded the copyright material. Those are the ones that should be getting hoisted off to American gulags.

I'm not defending the government here, I'm just saying that we shouldn't be shedding any tears or giving any of our hard earned money to help a 23 year old who did something to assist in illegal activity, and made a lot of people's yearly salary a month doing it. He can pay his own legal bills.

Imperialist shitheads.

Why does the governments of the world put up with it I wonder?

There was no repercussions when it was discovered that all their embassies in Scandinavia was spying.

tangoprime:

Acrisius:

albino boo:

If you hide behind legal technicalities to make money out of advertising piracy don't be surprised when the big boys find some other legal technicalities to drop on you from a great height. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

In the US, it's illegal to drink if you're younger than 21, right? That age is 18 in Sweden for example. Does it sound sane to you that I could be charged for a crime in the US despite never being there, because I'm a 20 year old drinking in Sweden?

If you're doing it at a US embassy or consulate in Sweden, then it doesn't sound insane. Even if it's shaky, and will probably not work here in the US (especially with the kind of lawyer this young man should be able to afford), there was jurisdiction shown. He violated a US law, and the US demonstrated enough for the British government that it was done under their jurisdiction.

Did we not just read the same article, or are you just making shit up? In what way does the US have jurisdiction? The internet is property of the US now?

I've violated tons of US laws. Possibly more than this guy ever has, and I can say the same for my fellow countrymen. How is it different?

DataSnake:
Question for the people who don't see anything wrong with this: do you think Saudi Arabia should be able to demand US citizens who have committed adultery be sent over for execution? Should China be able to demand we send over anyone who speaks out in favor of Tibet?

No, but if we did it UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION, then I would expect at least a bit of a legal hassle at the very least.

Also, like another poster pointed out earlier, America can only police the world as far as the world lets it-

Acrisius:

tangoprime:

Acrisius:

In the US, it's illegal to drink if you're younger than 21, right? That age is 18 in Sweden for example. Does it sound sane to you that I could be charged for a crime in the US despite never being there, because I'm a 20 year old drinking in Sweden?

If you're doing it at a US embassy or consulate in Sweden, then it doesn't sound insane. Even if it's shaky, and will probably not work here in the US (especially with the kind of lawyer this young man should be able to afford), there was jurisdiction shown. He violated a US law, and the US demonstrated enough for the British government that it was done under their jurisdiction.

Did we not just read the same article, or are you just making shit up? In what way does the US have jurisdiction? The internet is property of the US now?

I've violated tons of US laws. Possibly more than this guy ever has, and I can say the same for my fellow countrymen. How is it different?

Yes, we did read the same article, hence the reason I said it was shaky legal ground whether or not the US has jurisdiction, BUT according to the British, HIS GOVERNMENT, the US does have jurisdiction. So... who didn't read properly?

If you violated tons of US laws in a way that your own government deemed to be under their jurisdiction, then you might be in some trouble, and that's what's going on here. All of this said, I doubt it'll hold up in court in the United States, but dealing with this is apparently his reward for assisting in illegal activity.

From now on, Americans should only be allowed to demand Extradition if they first execute the first-born child of a Senator or the President. Maybe then they'll stop playing World Police.

In the country where the actions were performed he broke no laws, if he had then he would face trial in the UK. This is utterly ridiculous, just more proof that the "special relationship" consists of Britain bending over and getting fucked.

Wargamer:
From now on, Americans should only be allowed to demand Extradition if they first execute the first-born child of a Senator or the President. Maybe then they'll stop playing World Police.

They only get to play world police in places where they're allowed to do so. How about people make some changes in their own country that stop allowing such international policies?

tangoprime:

Wargamer:
SNIP

They only get to play world police in places where they're allowed to do so. How about people make some changes in their own country that stop allowing such international policies?

If they're not allowed to, they'll do it anyway.

OriginalLadders:

tangoprime:

Wargamer:
SNIP

They only get to play world police in places where they're allowed to do so. How about people make some changes in their own country that stop allowing such international policies?

If they're not allowed to, they'll do it anyway.

And I say way to go Spain for saying no initially, it's a shame they didn't call Obama's bluff. Again, they weren't being forced, they could've still said 'no' and either saw that it was a bluff, or dealt with the outcome. The policing only goes as far as it's allowed to go. They folded and allowed the policing to continue.

Edit: As a US citizen, I wish we'd deal with our own BS instead of trying to police the rest of the world too, lord knows we have enough of our own crap to deal with. I just wish more countries would stand up and stop allowing it to happen, and more people here in the US would vote down the idiots doing it.

But that's another topic. The topic here is about someone who assisted in a criminal activity without violating the law in his home country via a loophole, and now a loophole was used to prosecute him, and his own government seems to support the prosecution. I think he's reaping what he's sown.

Yeah... the guy significantly profited from adspace on a website that aids illegal activity. It's not like he wasn't aware people would use his site for illegal purposes, he clearly knew.

Just because he's found a loophole in the law, doesn't mean he should be let free. As for the idea the Yanks have somehow stolen him off us... it's not like Navy Seals stormed the courtroom and stuffed him in a burlap sack, is it? If we didn't want to extradite him, we wouldn't have.

Now for non US viewers. Please note that the people of this country that are not like the ones are really vocally loud. Also this guy does deserve to face punishment. Its bad to steal someone elses work but to get money for it is a new level of bad

Daverson:
Yeah... the guy significantly profited from adspace on a website that aids illegal activity. It's not like he wasn't aware people would use his site for illegal purposes, he clearly knew.

Just because he's found a loophole in the law, doesn't mean he should be let free. As for the idea the Yanks have somehow stolen him off us... it's not like Navy Seals stormed the courtroom and stuffed him in a burlap sack, is it? If we didn't want to extradite him, we wouldn't have.

Thank you. Thank you. Someone else understands my position.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here