British Student Loses Extradition Battle Over Copyright Violation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Acrisius:

post="7.338398.13696014"]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.

OriginalLadders:
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.

The major difference, and a point I have made several times yet constantly get ignored, is that what he was doing is a crime in the UK (specifically, facilitation of copyright infringement), which he is clearly guilty of. The decision to extradite was confirmed by the home office (effectively the government) and the courts (independent from government) - for both to agree means there must be pretty good, legal, reason for the US government to want him extradited and for the UK to feel such would be more appropriate then a prosecution over here - and no "kissing up to America's arse" would not be a reason any more then "because the magic moon ponies demanded it" would be. There would need to be a strong basis in law.

Now, what is the betting I get ignored because it's not what people want to hear?

Ethan Isaacs:
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

He didn't steal anything. He linked to where the copyrighted material is hosted. Not a crime. He's being made an example of because the people that run America want the public to fear them. This extraditiont treaty is heavily biased in favour to America. I absolutely despise the "special relationship" the UK has with America because we end up with a deficit.

GonvilleBromhead:

OriginalLadders:
SNIP

The major difference, and a point I have made several times yet constantly get ignored, is that what he was doing is a crime in the UK (specifically, facilitation of copyright infringement), which he is clearly guilty of. The decision to extradite was confirmed by the home office (effectively the government) and the courts (independent from government) - for both to agree means there must be pretty good, legal, reason for the US government to want him extradited and for the UK to feel such would be more appropriate then a prosecution over here - and no "kissing up to America's arse" would not be a reason any more then "because the magic moon ponies demanded it" would be. There would need to be a strong basis in law.

Now, what is the betting I get ignored because it's not what people want to hear?

Well, in that case, it's still ridiculous. If he's not being prosecuted for breaking the laws of a country he was in at the time, then there's no reason for him to be prosecuted for breaking the laws of a country he was not in, not that there would ever be a reason for that to happen.

OriginalLadders:

GonvilleBromhead:

OriginalLadders:
SNIP

The major difference, and a point I have made several times yet constantly get ignored, is that what he was doing is a crime in the UK (specifically, facilitation of copyright infringement), which he is clearly guilty of. The decision to extradite was confirmed by the home office (effectively the government) and the courts (independent from government) - for both to agree means there must be pretty good, legal, reason for the US government to want him extradited and for the UK to feel such would be more appropriate then a prosecution over here - and no "kissing up to America's arse" would not be a reason any more then "because the magic moon ponies demanded it" would be. There would need to be a strong basis in law.

Now, what is the betting I get ignored because it's not what people want to hear?

Well, in that case, it's still ridiculous. If he's not being prosecuted for breaking the laws of a country he was in at the time, then there's no reason for him to be prosecuted for breaking the laws of a country he was not in, not that there would ever be a reason for that to happen.

The reason for the extradition being granted was due to the majority of those damaged by his actions being in the United States, according to the ruling in the US vs O'Dwyer case (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf) - the relevant bit is here:

"There are said to be direct consequences of criminal activity by Richard O'Dwyer in the U.S.A. albeit by him never leaving the north of England. Such a state of affairs does not demand a trial here if the competent U.K. authorities decline to act and does, in my judgement, permit one in the U.S.A."

Now before anyone interjects:

a) Yes, he can be prosecuted in the UK if the UK wished to. The UK authorities haven't, most likely due to a lack of UK based evidence

b) It would work in reverse - say if someone who never left the US were to steal from a bank in the UK through electronic means, the UK could ask to have him extradited, and the US could grant it. The requirements are the same both ways.

c) Prima Facie proof is not required - reasonable suspicion is, and is the case in the above.

GonvilleBromhead:
... for both to agree means there must be pretty good, legal, reason for the US government to want him extradited and for the UK to feel such would be more appropriate then a prosecution over here ...

No, I would rather say that the US authorities exert an enormous amount of pressue to get this guy extradited. The reason they aren't prosecuting him in this country is because he isn't guilty of any crime here...

MasterOfHisOwnDomain:

GonvilleBromhead:
... for both to agree means there must be pretty good, legal, reason for the US government to want him extradited and for the UK to feel such would be more appropriate then a prosecution over here ...

No, I would rather say that the US authorities exert an enormous amount of pressue to get this guy extradited. The reason they aren't prosecuting him in this country is because he isn't guilty of any crime here...

According to the judge who ruled over the extradition appeal, there is reasonable cause to suspect that his actions violated 107(2A)Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
"A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work in public
(a) in the course of business, or
(b) otherwise than in the course of business but to such an extent as to affect
prejudicially the owner of the copyright commits an offence if he knows or
has reason to believe that, by doing so he is infringing copyright in that
work".

The accusation about "putting preasure" or the Brits just bending over backwards can be simply counteracted by pointed people in the direction of Abu Hamza al-Masri. A terrorist. Which the UK has failed to extradite to the US following various appeals. I would have thought the US would be rather more desperate to get there hands on a terroist then a file sharer

Abandon4093:

twaddle:

Xiado:
Let's just let the US have SOPA, and make a second, free internet for international citizens, seeing as the US feels the internet belongs to them.

Didn't u here the news? The U.S. govt apparently shelved the SOPA bill. It's over.

It's by no means over. PIPA or whatever is threatening to go through now. And its not like these people aren't going to try anothe Bill. ACTA was killed, then SOPA popped up. Now there's PIPA. What next?

I don't see these bills stopping anytime soon.

I was only referring to the bill not the overall conflict.

Goddamn

MasterOfHisOwnDomain:

GonvilleBromhead:
... for both to agree means there must be pretty good, legal, reason for the US government to want him extradited and for the UK to feel such would be more appropriate then a prosecution over here ...

No, I would rather say that the US authorities exert an enormous amount of pressue to get this guy extradited. The reason they aren't prosecuting him in this country is because he isn't guilty of any crime here...

So the USA has jurisdiction over the internet, then? In some countries, it is illegal to view pornographic videos. What rights do those countries have to call for us to be extradited because we broke their law? Not a single right. They can go and fuck themselves.

The guy is non-American. The website is non-American. It's hosted in an non-American country.

This case will get thrown out of court. Whether it's in our Supreme Court when they appeal or the European Court.

twaddle:

Xiado:
Let's just let the US have SOPA, and make a second, free internet for international citizens, seeing as the US feels the internet belongs to them.

Didn't u here the news? The U.S. govt apparently shelved the SOPA bill. It's over.

I did, but this was posted before the news went online.

If the UK was run by the punters at the local boozer the American's would've been told to get F&%@D, The UK Judge who thought we should let him go would've been nutted, Mr. O'dwyer could carry on abiding his home laws without hurting a fly. And we could've gone for a victory pint or 7 by now...But alas, it isnt. Nevermind!

Now I know its not America trying to be world police and blah de blah. Quite frankly, they couldnt if they wanted to. They have enough problems of their own, leave them be. We're meant to work together to overcome copyright infringements, and that's kind of what we're doing. The anger doesnt lie with America. It lies with the terrible legal system in this country. The judge was spineless, end of really. Feel free to petition to get this kid back here or whatever. But frankly, he walked a legal grey area and knew the risks. He's old enough to be responsible by now and needs to tread carefully from here-on in.

I do still disagree with him serving time in America, that's just unecessary. The crime ( if it is indeed a crime ) was done on home soil, he should be incarcerated on home soil.

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.

The crime here is media companies paying congress to be in their pocket to increase copyright limits and turn what used to be a civil matter into a felony not just in the US but around the world.

I'm almost looking forward to the Chinese taking the big stick away from Americans.

As an American, I must say... it's things like this that make me embarrassed to be so. I don't even understand the logic here. .com or .net automatically means America? Really? That's all it takes?

GonvilleBromhead:
I would have thought the US would be rather more desperate to get their hands on a terrorist then a file sharer.

Hmmm... Who has more power in America? The State Department and the Pentagon, or the RIAA and the MPAA?

seraphy:

godofallu:

Completely agree with Albino here, if you're going to make money by stealing other peoples work en mass and get away with it due to a loophole. Expect to be taken down by a loophole.

Oh and comparing Tv Shack to Google has got to be the stupidest reasoning I have ever heard. Google is a search engine designed to search for anything. Tv Shack is a website that hosts illegal streams. There is no legal use of Tv Shack.

Can't wait for the guy to get arrested. He was given too many warnings, and has hurt to many people to pity.

Expect you know TV shack didn't host anything.

Also he didn't do anything illegal in his own country. I am sure many US citizens would be thrilled for being extradited to say saudi arabia for breaking their puplic decency laws, in US where their behaviour isn't actually crime.

Except he did brake laws, international copyright laws that the UK has officially agreed to, and he was always bound to. His website was brought down before, his house raided. He knew what he was doing wasn't legal, but the money blinded him.

Why is US taxpayer money being used to maximize the profits of corporations when there are so many better uses for it?

Wait I think I answered my own question.

While I dont suppot Piracy, his site only linked to torrent sites, which really google can do, so this seems extreme

DVS BSTrD:
NOBODY but NOBODY owns the internet!

Once again makes me feel my belief that the internet should be governed seperately from any national government is justified.

image

That's just silly.

GonvilleBromhead:

Acrisius:

post="7.338398.13696014"]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.

OriginalLadders:
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.

The major difference, and a point I have made several times yet constantly get ignored, is that what he was doing is a crime in the UK (specifically, facilitation of copyright infringement), which he is clearly guilty of. The decision to extradite was confirmed by the home office (effectively the government) and the courts (independent from government) - for both to agree means there must be pretty good, legal, reason for the US government to want him extradited and for the UK to feel such would be more appropriate then a prosecution over here - and no "kissing up to America's arse" would not be a reason any more then "because the magic moon ponies demanded it" would be. There would need to be a strong basis in law.

Now, what is the betting I get ignored because it's not what people want to hear?

Not sure why you're quoting me, looks like a mistake when you tried to shorten it down or something. What you're saying doesn't make any sense though. The article clearly states that he's NOT breaking UK law, yet that's the first claim you make. What..?

tangoprime:

Acrisius:

tangoprime:

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.

Oh you think this has anything to do with actual law? This is all politics. Britain is the USA's buttbuddy. Simply as that really. There's no other way any government would ever think what you describe by saying "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." You're basically flipping the finger off to any national laws you have, since obviously there's no such thing as democracy or self-rule. We all have to adopt the laws of mighty and righteous UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. In God we trust...

godofallu:

Except he did brake laws, international copyright laws that the UK has officially agreed to, and he was always bound to. His website was brought down before, his house raided. He knew what he was doing wasn't legal, but the money blinded him.

Even if he did break a law , he still should not have be extradited. He did this on UK soil and did not use a US server. The US Government have no right to take him and the UK government have no right to agree to this.

Extradition should only be used for extreme criminals who have actually done damage to the specific country, such as terrorists,murderers,etc. It should not be wasted on small cases.

Also, Google and this site are similar in certain ways. TVShack was used to get to piracy sites. Google can link me to a shit ton of sites, including piracy sites, Roms, etc through key words. I wonder, why are they focusing on such a small fry compared to that? *cough* money *cough*

My main problem is the Extradition.If he did commit a crime he should be tried under UK law, this is just such a bullshit reason to extradite someone.

Frankster:

mad825:

[quote="emeraldrafael" post="7.338398.13695162"]
Nol because this isnt bullying. I've laready said this. the US is given the power tod o this, it didnt take it. after WW2 (which is when most people like to say the US started policing the world) there were a few countries that could have policed the world. in fact thats the reason we have the UN, so countries dont do this. If the UN (and much of the world) is too incompetent to do its job and say no, then you cant blame someone who does their job for them when they're giving the power to.

Euh no, US took the power violently and can even tell you when it happened. After ww2 USA didn't become number 1 all of a sudden and the previous dominant powers, uk and france for example, didnt just roll over and pass the torch to the US.

The turning point was the canal de suez incident where the US threated to NUKE uk and french forces opposing them. This was the moment british and french power was permanently shattered and everyone realized it was the US calling the shots now.

I still think thats kinda a bitch move imo, "argue with us? we nuke you!". But hey thats the way the cookie crumbled.

Try doing your research on the Suez Crisis... Eisenhower ordered U-2's into the air above Egypt and Israel to make sure that the Soviet's didn't attack the British and French. He also stated that he was ready to go to war against the USSR if any aggressive actions were taken. Yes, the US opposed Anglo-Franco-Israeli forces during the crisis, but for a good reason. And after WW2 the US was the dominant power; mostly because it was the only economy not totally shattered by the war.

On topic:
Even if the US has legal grounds by which to do it (which it does) it is pathetic to go after crimes that are committed in other countries, especially when there are similar torrent sites based in America.

Frankster:

mad825:

[quote="emeraldrafael" post="7.338398.13695162"]
Nol because this isnt bullying. I've laready said this. the US is given the power tod o this, it didnt take it. after WW2 (which is when most people like to say the US started policing the world) there were a few countries that could have policed the world. in fact thats the reason we have the UN, so countries dont do this. If the UN (and much of the world) is too incompetent to do its job and say no, then you cant blame someone who does their job for them when they're giving the power to.

Euh no, US took the power violently and can even tell you when it happened. After ww2 USA didn't become number 1 all of a sudden and the previous dominant powers, uk and france for example, didnt just roll over and pass the torch to the US.

The turning point was the canal de suez incident where the US threated to NUKE uk and french forces opposing them. This was the moment british and french power was permanently shattered and everyone realized it was the US calling the shots now.

I still think thats kinda a bitch move imo, "argue with us? we nuke you!". But hey thats the way the cookie crumbled.

Try doing your research on the Suez Crisis... Eisenhower ordered U-2's into the air above Egypt and Israel to make sure that the Soviet's didn't attack the British and French. He also stated that he was ready to go to war against the USSR if any aggressive actions were taken. Yes, the US opposed Anglo-Franco-Israeli forces during the crisis, but for a good reason. And after WW2 the US was the dominant power; mostly because it was the only economy not totally shattered by the war.

On topic:
Even if the US has legal grounds by which to do it (which it does) it is pathetic to go after crimes that are committed in other countries, especially when there are similar torrent sites based in America.

Frankster:

mad825:

[quote="emeraldrafael" post="7.338398.13695162"]
Nol because this isnt bullying. I've laready said this. the US is given the power tod o this, it didnt take it. after WW2 (which is when most people like to say the US started policing the world) there were a few countries that could have policed the world. in fact thats the reason we have the UN, so countries dont do this. If the UN (and much of the world) is too incompetent to do its job and say no, then you cant blame someone who does their job for them when they're giving the power to.

Euh no, US took the power violently and can even tell you when it happened. After ww2 USA didn't become number 1 all of a sudden and the previous dominant powers, uk and france for example, didnt just roll over and pass the torch to the US.

The turning point was the canal de suez incident where the US threated to NUKE uk and french forces opposing them. This was the moment british and french power was permanently shattered and everyone realized it was the US calling the shots now.

I still think thats kinda a bitch move imo, "argue with us? we nuke you!". But hey thats the way the cookie crumbled.

Try doing your research on the Suez Crisis... Eisenhower ordered U-2's into the air above Egypt and Israel to make sure that the Soviet's didn't attack the British and French. He also stated that he was ready to go to war against the USSR if any aggressive actions were taken. Yes, the US opposed Anglo-Franco-Israeli forces during the crisis, but for a good reason. And after WW2 the US was the dominant power; mostly because it was the only economy not totally shattered by the war.

On topic:
Even if the US has legal grounds by which to do it (which it does) it is pathetic to go after crimes that are committed in other countries, especially when there are similar torrent sites based in America.

Frankster:

mad825:

[quote="emeraldrafael" post="7.338398.13695162"]
Nol because this isnt bullying. I've laready said this. the US is given the power tod o this, it didnt take it. after WW2 (which is when most people like to say the US started policing the world) there were a few countries that could have policed the world. in fact thats the reason we have the UN, so countries dont do this. If the UN (and much of the world) is too incompetent to do its job and say no, then you cant blame someone who does their job for them when they're giving the power to.

Euh no, US took the power violently and can even tell you when it happened. After ww2 USA didn't become number 1 all of a sudden and the previous dominant powers, uk and france for example, didnt just roll over and pass the torch to the US.

The turning point was the canal de suez incident where the US threated to NUKE uk and french forces opposing them. This was the moment british and french power was permanently shattered and everyone realized it was the US calling the shots now.

I still think thats kinda a bitch move imo, "argue with us? we nuke you!". But hey thats the way the cookie crumbled.

Try doing your research on the Suez Crisis... Eisenhower ordered U-2's into the air above Egypt and Israel to make sure that the Soviet's didn't attack the British and French. He also stated that he was ready to go to war against the USSR if any aggressive actions were taken. Yes, the US opposed Anglo-Franco-Israeli forces during the crisis, but for a good reason. And after WW2 the US was the dominant power; mostly because it was the only economy not totally shattered by the war.

On topic:
Even if the US has legal grounds by which to do it (which it does) it is pathetic to go after crimes that are committed in other countries, especially when there are similar torrent sites based in America.

Frankster:

mad825:

[quote="emeraldrafael" post="7.338398.13695162"]
Nol because this isnt bullying. I've laready said this. the US is given the power tod o this, it didnt take it. after WW2 (which is when most people like to say the US started policing the world) there were a few countries that could have policed the world. in fact thats the reason we have the UN, so countries dont do this. If the UN (and much of the world) is too incompetent to do its job and say no, then you cant blame someone who does their job for them when they're giving the power to.

Euh no, US took the power violently and can even tell you when it happened. After ww2 USA didn't become number 1 all of a sudden and the previous dominant powers, uk and france for example, didnt just roll over and pass the torch to the US.

The turning point was the canal de suez incident where the US threated to NUKE uk and french forces opposing them. This was the moment british and french power was permanently shattered and everyone realized it was the US calling the shots now.

I still think thats kinda a bitch move imo, "argue with us? we nuke you!". But hey thats the way the cookie crumbled.

Try doing your research on the Suez Crisis... Eisenhower ordered U-2's into the air above Egypt and Israel to make sure that the Soviet's didn't attack the British and French. He also stated that he was ready to go to war against the USSR if any aggressive actions were taken. Yes, the US opposed Anglo-Franco-Israeli forces during the crisis, but for a good reason. And after WW2 the US was the dominant power; mostly because it was the only economy not totally shattered by the war.

On topic:
Even if the US has legal grounds by which to do it (which it does) it is pathetic to go after crimes that are committed in other countries, especially when there are similar torrent sites based in America.

I would like to apologize for the 5 above, repeating comments, it was accidental and I can not figure out how to delete them

Shocking decision. Hopefully his appeal will be successful but the extradition treaty is so biased in the US' favour I won't hold my breath.

Shadie777:

godofallu:

Except he did brake laws, international copyright laws that the UK has officially agreed to, and he was always bound to. His website was brought down before, his house raided. He knew what he was doing wasn't legal, but the money blinded him.

Even if he did break a law , he still should not have be extradited. He did this on UK soil and did not use a US server. The US Government have no right to take him and the UK government have no right to agree to this.

Extradition should only be used for extreme criminals who have actually done damage to the specific country, such as terrorists,murderers,etc. It should not be wasted on small cases.

Also, Google and this site are similar in certain ways. TVShack was used to get to piracy sites. Google can link me to a shit ton of sites, including piracy sites, Roms, etc through key words. I wonder, why are they focusing on such a small fry compared to that? *cough* money *cough*

My main problem is the Extradition.If he did commit a crime he should be tried under UK law, this is just such a bullshit reason to extradite someone.

He should have been extradited, because that is the entire point of the international copyright agreement.

Pirating on a mass scale does harm the US.

This isn't a small case, Tv Shack is a huge website with a lot of illegal traffic. This isn't just some kid in a basement downloading 1 movie.

This is a criminal case.

Google will link you to anything, while Tv Shack will only link you with illegal content. Kind of like how a pawnshop might have a few stolen items, but a drug dealer will only sell you stuff you shouldn't have.

emeraldrafael:
Before all the "America is policing the world" comments come in, just remember britian could have told us to fuck off, but they chose not to. You can only police the world when the world lets you.

this, besides if the servers were not on US soil, this court case wont hold up.

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".

Agreed. It also seems like the Americans extradite far less of their criminals to the UK than the UK do to the USA. We should just say "Get stuffed. You're a spent power, we don't like you, stop blaming us for things that were either a) in the past, or b) not our fault (e.g. we somehow got blamed for the BP oil spill. BP is not british any more, and it was an American company that built it anyway.). And besides, we're a triple A nation and you aren't, so start being nice to us, peasants.

Ilikemilkshake:
He's in the UK. He didn't break any UK laws. He should not be facing trial.
The US would never extradite one of their own if were the other way around, especially not for something so petty... I really wish we'd stop being such bitches when it comes to our "special relationship"

Pretty much what I said above, but I felt I had to quote it anyway.

Concerning the whole "not on US soil" argument. The servers might not have been based in the US, but ALL .net addresses are registered in the US. This isn't the US policing the internet, it's the US policing their domains. The servers could be in deep space, the argument would still stand. You use a US address, you're under US law.

We do have the .uk and .gb domains for a reasons other than getting a nationalism boner, you know...

And, again, I'd remind you this kid isn't making some kind of point about free speech here. He's a plain criminal, if not in the word of the law, definitely in the spirit. He's made more money in a month with this site than a lot of posters here would make in a year. Money he's clearly used to get lawyers capable of stirring up the biggest fuss about it as they can...

FalloutJack:
Speaking AS a man living in America...

This is a really shitty thing to demand extradition for. Go find those yahoos that cause actual damage or are inherently malicious. What's this? White collar crime and the matter of whether it's actually criminal in question? Pathetic. By god, find something better to do with your time. Entertainment is not worth pulling a guy out of the country for.

Speaking as a US citizen, first of all I have a problem with copyright to begin with (the idea of one person having a temporary (read: like, 15 years) monopoly on their intellectual property, as it was when the US first decided to recognize copyright? Fine. Copyright that extends 75 years past the author's death, assuming the author isn't a corporation[1]? Screw that.) But second, this is the equivalent of one of those countries in the middle east that executes people for drawing pictures of Mohammed asking for extradition from the US because someone in the US posted a picture of Mohammed on the internet, and the US actually caving. I know I just conflated execution with jail time and fines, but these are jailtimes and fines that are A.) life ruining, and b.) would not be incurred in the country that this "crime" was committed in, because that country doesn't consider it a crime. It really sickens me that the country that I was raised to believe had more freedom than any other place on the planet[2] has become a place where personal freedom means nothing, unless that "person" is a large corporation[3].

[1] in which case it can essentially be carried out indefinitely
[2] and on paper it does; it's just that we ignore the piece of paper that says we can't do this stuff almost as often as actual first world countries ignore the one that says they /can./
[3] because don't you know, corporate personhood has been redifined from "a convenient legal fiction that lets corporation be taxed and make contracts as if they were one person" to "an actual person under the law, with all the rights that implies plus the ones they get as a corporation"

That judge needs to grow some fucking balls. You DO NOT extradite your citizens for a bloody copyright infringement. What kind of government has so little respect for its citizens' basic rights?

Adincha:
snip

Research done even if I exagerated and simplified what happened for comedic effect.

The US indeed was indeed the strongest economy standing after ww2 but it wasn't quite as accepted as the new world superpower until THAT moment, when brits and french realized that US had quietly threatened them with nukes, and the sheer suggestion of it is what caused their forces to pull back and let the US have their way. This was a strongly symbolic moment, don't underestimate it ;)

As for whether nations had "good", "bad" or w/e reasons, I didn't comment about that.

Acrisius:

Not sure why you're quoting me, looks like a mistake when you tried to shorten it down or something. What you're saying doesn't make any sense though. The article clearly states that he's NOT breaking UK law, yet that's the first claim you make. What..?

Yes...I'd rather trust the judgement of a District Judge then a journalist who is merely repeating the claims of the defendent

Agreed. It also seems like the Americans extradite far less of their criminals to the UK than the UK do to the USA. We should just say "Get stuffed. You're a spent power, we don't like you, stop blaming us for things that were either a) in the past, or b) not our fault (e.g. we somehow got blamed for the BP oil spill. BP is not british any more, and it was an American company that built it anyway.). And besides, we're a triple A nation and you aren't, so start being nice to us, peasants.

Actually, we've requested fewer extraditions from the US, but all have been agreed to by the US authorities. We have rejected three (IIRC) of the US requests

GonvilleBromhead:

Acrisius:

Not sure why you're quoting me, looks like a mistake when you tried to shorten it down or something. What you're saying doesn't make any sense though. The article clearly states that he's NOT breaking UK law, yet that's the first claim you make. What..?

Yes...I'd rather trust the judgement of a District Judge then a journalist who is merely repeating the claims of the defendent

Agreed. It also seems like the Americans extradite far less of their criminals to the UK than the UK do to the USA. We should just say "Get stuffed. You're a spent power, we don't like you, stop blaming us for things that were either a) in the past, or b) not our fault (e.g. we somehow got blamed for the BP oil spill. BP is not british any more, and it was an American company that built it anyway.). And besides, we're a triple A nation and you aren't, so start being nice to us, peasants.

Actually, we've requested fewer extraditions from the US, but all have been agreed to by the US authorities. We have rejected three (IIRC) of the US requests

Maybe it's just my american-ness talking, but I have yet to see a district judge say anything about copyright that implies he's not just doing what the nice people from Hollywood have told him to do. Although granted, their lobbyists are the ones who wrote the laws they're interpreting...

 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