British Student Loses Extradition Battle Over Copyright Violation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

America says "jump". UK says "how high?"

And yet radical law-breaking clerics are not deported. Broken country.

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.

100 points to you for noticing. Britain had the priviledge of saying no to extradition if they thought the US was operating unfairly, but it felt it was reasonable. It was decided by an impartial judge, residing over a trial in which the defence team could make any argument they wanted. For that reason, I think it is unreasonable to spuriously claim the judge made a bad decision (who is better qualified to make that decision, anyway?). Despite that, I think one could make a legitimate criticism of the current extradition policy in the UK.

As for the crime itself: not sure what to think. It sure seems to me that, even if he doesn't directly provide the torrents, he is at least an intermediate/accessory to those committing the copywrite infringement, and he profits heavily from doing so. But I'll let the courts decide that, rather than make an uninformed, rash declaration about it.

The Cool Kid:
America says "jump". UK says "how high?"

And yet radical law-breaking clerics are not deported. Broken country.

Out of interest, which way would you have it? extradite all those who genuinely fall foul of foreign countries, or extradite no one? Should we set a limit on who can be extradited? (Kiddy fiddlers, definitely; illigitimate business men, no.)

Extradition is always a sore problem. Should Roman Polanski get extradited along with those paedophile priests? Should an illegal arms dealer get to stay home, along with a 23 year old, internet geek, small potato? The answers to those questions may come to you easily, but try putting it into some kind of international, legal context that can deal with any and every case.

maninahat:

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.

100 points to you for noticing. Britain had the priviledge of saying no to extradition if they thought the US was operating unfairly, but it felt it was reasonable. It was decided by an impartial judge, residing over a trial in which the defence team could make any argument they wanted. For that reason, I think it is unreasonable to spuriously claim the judge made a bad decision (who is better qualified to make that decision, anyway?). Despite that, I think one could make a legitimate criticism of the current extradition policy in the UK.

As for the crime itself: not sure what to think. It sure seems to me that, even if he doesn't directly provide the torrents, he is at least an intermediate/accessory to those committing the copywrite infringement, and he profits heavily from doing so. But I'll let the courts decide that, rather than make an uninformed, rash declaration about it.

Thank you for being the second person to say something about torrents. I thought that the first person was just misinformed. Then when you said it, I went and read the article more closely, and realized it was The Escapist that made the mistake. TVshack.net was a collection of links to /streaming videos./ Like, youtube, Veoh, that sort of thing. Sites that, if anyone had bothered, would have had to take down the offending content if given a C&D letter. I'm going to give The Escapist the benefit of the doubt here that what they meant to say is that the excuse applies just as well to this as it does to torrent sites, and not that it actually was a torrent site, because that would be a flat out lie.

I have a source that proves this, but unfortunately it has links to knockoffs that haven't been taken down yet, and I don't want to post it on a site that is so anti-piracy that simply admitting to having done it in the past can get you banned.

maninahat:

The Cool Kid:
America says "jump". UK says "how high?"

And yet radical law-breaking clerics are not deported. Broken country.

Out of interest, which way would you have it? extradite all those who genuinely fall foul of foreign countries, or extradite no one? Should we set a limit on who can be extradited? (Kiddy fiddlers, definitely; illigitimate business men, no.)

Extradition is always a sore problem. Should Roman Polanski get extradited along with those paedophile priests? Should an illegal arms dealer get to stay home, along with a 23 year old, internet geek, small potato? The answers to those questions may come to you easily, but try putting it into some kind of international, legal context that can deal with any and every case.

If the law broken is recognized in the country hosting the "criminal", sure, but in that case it wasn't so it seems more of a case of politics then justice. Although from the news in the Summer, it sure looks like the UK has problems with law and order.

maninahat:

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.

100 points to you for noticing. Britain had the priviledge of saying no to extradition if they thought the US was operating unfairly, but it felt it was reasonable. It was decided by an impartial judge, residing over a trial in which the defence team could make any argument they wanted. For that reason, I think it is unreasonable to spuriously claim the judge made a bad decision (who is better qualified to make that decision, anyway?). Despite that, I think one could make a legitimate criticism of the current extradition policy in the UK.

As for the crime itself: not sure what to think. It sure seems to me that, even if he doesn't directly provide the torrents, he is at least an intermediate/accessory to those committing the copywrite infringement, and he profits heavily from doing so. But I'll let the courts decide that, rather than make an uninformed, rash declaration about it.

Eh, fromt he other quotes Ive been getting Im still int he wrong and the US would have did something similar to what they did to Spain, so its nt really a victory i guess.

thanks though.

And this is why you host piracy places in Sweden, Swedish law is awesome with regards to this sort of thing. As an American this is stupid, it's a british guy doing what he did in Britain, nothing involved us but we get involved anyway.

The US needs to stop acting like it owns the internet. Yes, they invented it, cool. But it's now a place for freedom of expression and so forth for the entire world. We need an independant body for this.

666Satsuki:

StBishop:
You can't really pass a law which pertains to a country without it's permission.

If Australia decided to pass a law which prohibited driving over 130km/h (<100 m/h) and just said it was international and hot New Zealand and a couple other randoms to sign up too would the Governement here have the right to have Millions of Germans extradited for driving on the Autobahn?

People like you who have zero knowledge about law should not be talking in this thread. It just astounds me that you dont understand how idiotic your post is.

It's a slight over statement to say that I have zero knowledge about law.

I'll readily admit that I know next to nothing (relatively) about the laws that're involved here, but if someone is being prosecuted for something that isn't "Wrong" perhaps the laws need to be changed?

hmmmmm ok, so the US court is saying it can do this because TVshack ended in .com or .net which gives them jurisdiction....but this guy has almost nothing to do with the U.S.

ATTENTION CONGRESS....WE'RE IN AN ECONOMIC CRISIS RIGHT NOW, CAN WE FOCUS ON THAT PLEASE? WHAT IF I BOUGHT YOU GUYS SOME VEGTABLES AND POP FROM PIZZA HUT SO YOU CAN HAVE YOUR TREEHOUSE CLUB MEETING???

god dammit, i can't wait till i start voting later this year, fuck ballot fatigue.

On one hand... the U.S. jurisdiction thing sounds like a load of crap. On the other... hosting a site with the only function as this one does should be subject to the law and get jail time... and with the internet it's incredibly easy to bypass this by effecting foreign stuff, to the advantage of foreign criminals, hurting foreign economies... without even existing in said foreign country.

Real tough to fight something like this.

SL33TBL1ND:
But it's now a place for freedom of expression and so forth for the entire world.

Oh come on... The U.S. definitely can't police the internet by itself but this "freedom of expression" in cases like this is a load of bull.

In SOPA's case the biggest problem is that actually might directly effect that expression. This is a site with the sole primary purpose to help people commit crimes.

Here's a source that doesn't violate the piracy rule: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/tv-shack

Torrents were not involved at all. Mr. Carter, ya done goofed.

I can understand US officials being upset with the website, but if the site itself wasn't host to any of the copyrighted material, then I don't see a trial here. It's one thing to act as the site that you can watch the material on, but it's another thing entirely to act as a portal to another website with said material.

This is a very tricky case. Yes, O'Dweyer should be punished for profiting on illegal downloads, but he himself never hosted anything that infringes copyright. He's a UK citizen. This is something that should be kept in a UK court.

If he is extradited and the case holds up in court, I would expect him to be fined and sent back home. It would be a waste of everyone's time to give him a prison sentence.

Grey Carter:
The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, however, maintains that any internet domain ending in .com or .net is fair game for US authorities as the company that provides those particular suffixes falls under US jurisdiction.

That is fucking baloney.

Whole world is USA colony. USA is the empire that rules the world at the moment. and we are only left alone because we dont try to break away from it. There is no "Freedom".

The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, however, maintains that any internet domain ending in .com or .net is fair game for US authorities

.com is a "company"
and .net is "network".
.us is for united states. com and net does not belong to anyone. if they claim it does, then a good sense would be to nuke the place up.

Torrent sites are a legal gray area in the UK.

no their not. torrent sites are completely legal as far as current law is concerned. it may be morally bad, but from laws side having such a site is completely legal. uploading files to it is not legal.

Wait hold up? This story came from the Guardian?

I don't give a shit about this story anymore, or whether this guy has to stand trial in the US. Fuck The Guardian. Fuck it with a rusty metal pole.

This is pretty bs... I mean, you can find illegal content through Google search, and that's clearly in U.S jurisdiction

What he did was not Illegal in the UK. Therefore he should not be shipped off to a country to stand trial for something that IS ILLEGAL THERE! This judge needs to be suspended for life. You do NOT ship off your own citizens to stand trial for a crime they committed in another country that IS NOT a crime in your own!

He IS innocent according to the law. He has done nothing wrong so long as he keeps his feet on UK soil. Are you going to ship off people to China and North Korea for owning a PS3? Cause you know. That's illegal there. Might as well do that if your going to send this guy off to America.

emeraldrafael:

To say Britain is a "small country" pretty much invalidates yours as well.

If anyone has the pull and means to tell the US to knock their shit off (other than china) its Britain. If they want to go spineless, its not the US' problem. Get better leaders.

United Kingdom:

242.900 kmē
61.113.205 inhabitants (2009)
GDP 2.772.570 (U.S. dollars)

United States:

9.629.091 kmē
307.212.123 inhabitants (2009)
GDP 13.843.825(U.S. dollars)

You were saying?

I'll admit I did not read all 6 pages of text.
But there is this thing in the back of my head screaming at me

"What happened to countries not extradicting fellow countrymen again?"

Because you know... As far as I know every country wouldn't hand over another countrymen to another nation on a whim.
This smells of a political hook if you ask me.

Sabinfrost:
This is pretty bs... I mean, you can find illegal content through Google search, and that's clearly in U.S jurisdiction

I think Google is not getting the stick beause they merely index the internet, not provide the tools or services to spread copyrighted material. Though that's is kinda a grey area. But I guess that if google goes down, all searchengines would need to go down and then the internet would be knocked back a couple of years. So even though Google is US restrictions, they have no material on their servers or not enough to be investigated.

Law, for something that is supposed to be right, it's quite tilted sideways.

On behalf of my country, I want to apologize. The current law for extradition facing criminal charges tips heavily in the U.S's favor. Between January 2004 and July 2011, North America has requested 123 people to be extradited from the United Kingdom, versus the UK's 54 requests.

If he gets held in one of our prisons, I'm orchestrating a jailbreak.

GonvilleBromhead:

OriginalLadders:

GonvilleBromhead:
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.

Finally, the end all do all comment. this here is the perfect reasoning for deciding if this is wrong or right. its right. now, if its a bit exagerated...thats another story. id inquire as to how they would process him, if he is found guilty? sent back to a jail in UK? spent time in US prison? whats the consequence here?

How come all of a sudden the Internet is like a top priority to the US government?

Speaking as a United States citizen, my country needs to get its fucking head out of its ass and stop thinking the world should answer to it. We have no business prosecuting a man who doesn't even live in the United States nor directly did anything to infringe upon it (as I've said a hundred times, you cannot put a number to revenue lost to piracy), and if the United Kingdom doesn't give a damn about the case, it's not our place to butt in.

LITE992:
How come all of a sudden the Internet is like a top priority to the US government?

It's what they do when they're bored; our politicians aren't happy unless there's a witch to burn. Internet piracy just happens to be the current witch.

Trillovinum:

emeraldrafael:

To say Britain is a "small country" pretty much invalidates yours as well.

If anyone has the pull and means to tell the US to knock their shit off (other than china) its Britain. If they want to go spineless, its not the US' problem. Get better leaders.

United Kingdom:

242.900 kmē
61.113.205 inhabitants (2009)
GDP 2.772.570 (U.S. dollars)

United States:

9.629.091 kmē
307.212.123 inhabitants (2009)
GDP 13.843.825(U.S. dollars)

You were saying?

Yeah, so for ever km2 Britain has 251 people, compared to the US's 31 people per km2

You were saying? its called economics of scale. you should probably learn them and what you posted didnt even take into consideration political pull. i didnt say the US had smaller political power, but that Britain has enough to at least rival the US and make a stand. They chose not to.

But by all means, keep telling the british citizens they're a small country in all regards.

ph0b0s123:

Tubez:
USA showing proudly that they are the Worlds police.

That's 'Team America' World Police. America, F@*k Yeah....

'Lick my but and suck on my b****.'

Whoo, America Land of the free, now please follow all of these rules to the letter otherwise we will find you and lock you up for so long you won' even remember what sunlight is.

Once again, land of the free.

So will SOPA effect .co.uk sites? Can't site owners just change over to UK servers?
(knows little about computers or the internet)

I'm disappointed to see a UK judge make that call. I'm in the US myself and I can't see any good from this happening. If they can just do a little legal zigging and zagging to get what they want, the world doesn't stand a chance. It would be a crime for this guy to go to jail in the US for potentially 10 years of his life. A country he has yet to set a single foot in. I feel it should be pointed out that a great many Americans don't like the idea of the US being world police. Have a little backbone!

I don't think anyone is saying he isn't guilty, He is, but that he should be tryed in the UK. Luckly for him he would not be prosicuted in the UK but that is another matter...

Note to self, Never have a .com domain. Not that I would make a site like TV Shack.

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.

Did you read the article? From my understanding of it the reason he is being extradited it because UK law would not prosicuite (can't spell) him and the judge beleived that he sould still be punnished.

So it is not so much that we are letting the US police the world more in this case the judge wants punishment dispite the 'never left the UK' argument.

Not to be rude, but the United States tends to be very sleezy when it comes to lawsuits or getting people from foreign countries to be "Brought to justice" as some people would say. Yet if any foreign country TRIED to have an American punished by their legal system for something like this, Americans would be in a uproar of offence at such a claim. So while I do respect Americans on various reasons and topics, I must say that their Legal System is corrupt or money motivated (Though even our own Canadian systen is corrupt to an extent).

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"

But we're meant to bend over backward whenever America wants something from us! :O How could you possibly be so heartless as to suggest otherwise.

Back in reality, seriously? SERIOUSLY? Is this honestly going somewhere? Wow. How on earth is America allowed to be the trial when he's done nothing in America, but set up something that's illegal? That's like saying I should be sent to, let's use an extreme example, a strict, fundamentalist Muslim country for writing a book of apostasy that was published there. Fuck's sake.

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!!!

Hosting a search engine that somebody else misuses to infringe copyright is not illegal in Britain. He did not commit a crime.

You can read english. There are places in the world where the punishment for that is being wrapped up in car tires, doused in petrol and set on fire. By your logic, a tribal warlord should be allowed to kidnap you to do exactly that. Unless you also believe that one should be able to pick and chose which laws one obeys.

Asehujiko:

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!!!

Hosting a search engine that somebody else misuses to infringe copyright is not illegal in Britain. He did not commit a crime.

You can read english. There are places in the world where the punishment for that is being wrapped up in car tires, doused in petrol and set on fire. By your logic, a tribal warlord should be allowed to kidnap you to do exactly that. Unless you also believe that one should be able to pick and chose which laws one obeys.

Really?
I'm sorry but once again I have to question the lack of understanding of trade agreements.
I explained it quite well as to why he can still be tried even though he is not breaking the law in the UK. If you honestly can't get why this is there really isn't any other explanation for me to give. Seriously please look up international trade agreements.

I don't know where to even begin with you example. So you're telling me there are places in the world where there are laws saying that it is illegal to be able to read english. I would like a source on these laws.

Since I know it doesn't exist I will do your job for you and break down the argument you are trying to present. So you're saying that why should we listen to the laws of other countries, people should only be subject to the laws of their own country. Why should this guy be the subject of American law and not the laws of other countries, say Iran?

And once again this boils down to the fact that this is a case of the guy is breaking an international law and not local law. Both the UK and the US agreed to uphold the copy right/trade agreement thus while the UK local law says that this is a grey area the US is still able to use the agreed upon international law to take the guy to trial.
Because of this, you wouldn't ever be tried by a place like Iran for breaking their local laws because your country never agreed to uphold that law, and no country ever would agree to uphold an insane law like the one you are proposing.

This is basic knowledge of laws, and I'm still surprised people are able to get up in arms about a topic when they don't really have any idea how it works.

Hehe, this is United States, but imagine if suddenly Thailand or Somalia or another country suddenly says you broke their laws and want you there.
And who knows what would they do to you.
Why do they have the ability to do that?

Rednog:

...

And once again this boils down to the fact that this isn't a case of the guy is breaking an international law and not local law. Both the UK and the US agreed to uphold the copy right/trade agreement thus while the UK local law says that this is a grey area the US is still able to use the agreed upon international law to take the guy to trial.
Because of this, you wouldn't ever be tried by a place like Iran for breaking their local laws because your country never agreed to uphold that law, and no country ever would agree to uphold an insane law like the one you are proposing.

This is basic knowledge of laws, and I'm still surprised people are able to get up in arms about a topic when they don't really have any idea how it works.

All right, after reading this I get it.

The zeal the companies have to punish so severely this "pirates" is scary.

 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