British Student Strikes Deal With US Prosecution

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Well, I think the US should also extradite people from the US who steal copyright info from other countries. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

When my dad was in the service military law dictated if a service member committed a crime overseas they were first punished by local law (as long as the punishment was not life in prison or death) and then they were charged in a military tribunal (that DID have the option of life in prison with no parole (and they meant no parole) or death as max sentences).

Deshin:

RoonMian:
That is something I didn't understand in the first place. In my country it is against the constitution to extradite a citizen to another country. If you are a citizen in my country and you broke the law and you are IN my country then you will stand trial in my country. If the law you broke doesn't exist in my country then nothing happens. I always assumed that this was just the same in the USA and Great Britain because our constitution pretty much had to pass their watching eye. So I really don't understand at all how the UK could ever consider extraditing him and I even don't understand it on several levels.

I'll save you all the legal babble and put it simply: USA says "jump" and Britain not only asks "how high?" but also "when?", "for how long?", and "off of what?" No one in any political seat with a voice has the balls to say "no" to the hulking great neighbour across the pond because keeping up their special relationship is more important than a handful of citizens.

When you wrote that I immediately thought of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsSduvXtt5Q

Don't know how to embed youtube yet, but it's showing the 2DTV sketch "Tony says"

OT: Yeah I wouldn't trust America to honour its agreement once I set foot on their soil I'd say bring it over here (UK).

O'Dwyer does still have to go to the US, but only to sign the documentation which, among other stipulations, makes him promise not to infringe copyright again.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who saw this and immediately thought, "Bull. Fucking. Shit."

If it was me I would be questioning why exactly I am required to go to the US to sign a piece of paper.

DJjaffacake:

O'Dwyer does still have to go to the US, but only to sign the documentation which, among other stipulations, makes him promise not to infringe copyright again.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who saw this and immediately thought, "Bull. Fucking. Shit."

If it was me I would be questioning why exactly I am required to go to the US to sign a piece of paper.

They've never heard of the Fax Machine in the US. It's the technological dark ages there.

This whole thing was a fucking mess. I am appalled that the US has had any say in this.

I love how 99% of y'all have NOOOOOOO idea about how the law works.

I admit to not knowing much about the law but I know commonsense. Stealing is wrong, posting links to places that are giving away stolen data is wrong. Do not tell me differently, because I know that in the next ten years legitimate TV networks will go to an "all online" approach. Why does that matter? BECAUSE NO ONE WILL BUY IT LEGALLY IF THE DAME PIRATES ARE GIVING IT AWAY. That means no more new TV programs or worse (only lame crap that is a remake of a remake).

I blame everyone who steals by downloading (or illegally streaming) data. Even if today the law is shaky, I am keeping on my Congressman to pass legislation protecting digital media rights. I have a dream too create an Internet TV station someday, I want to be able to make enough money to live on and then expand. I dream of buying rights to the good TV shows, editing them for family audiences, then advertising on family oriented websites.

Kopikatsu:

Because the internet is international and he broke US law for which the US can claim that Americans were using his site (And they probably were, too). I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

I agree that US citizens (amongst everyone else) where likely using his website, but isn't that like a US citizen buying crack in the UK and then the UK drug dealer being sent to the US for daring to enable its citizens to buy drugs?

Given the internet is international, it implies to me that the US government doesn't have any jurisdiction over it (naturally, they disagree).

And another attempt by the US to police the entire fucking world is squashed.

Good on ya mate.

Gilhelmi:
I love how 99% of y'all have NOOOOOOO idea about how the law works.

And I love how you claim others don't understand the law, and yet use the word "stealing" in a situation where it is entirely inapplicable.

No, I don't give a single fuck about your morals, it's the law that matters here, and downloading stuff off of the internet isn't stealing, it's infringement of copyright.

It also makes me giggle that you're apparently all for content creator's rights, but you'd still be willing to do something as abominable as butcher a perfectly good TV show to make it "family friendly".

Gilhelmi:
I love how 99% of y'all have NOOOOOOO idea about how the law works.

I admit to not knowing much about the law but I know commonsense. Stealing is wrong, posting links to places that are giving away stolen data is wrong. Do not tell me differently, because I know that in the next ten years legitimate TV networks will go to an "all online" approach. Why does that matter? BECAUSE NO ONE WILL BUY IT LEGALLY IF THE DAME PIRATES ARE GIVING IT AWAY. That means no more new TV programs or worse (only lame crap that is a remake of a remake).

Pirates are already giving it away. People are still buying the stuff though. That argument has already been proven wrong.

You can pirate Blops2, but look at that, it's still sold a fucktonne of games and broken records.

bringer of illumination:

Gilhelmi:
I love how 99% of y'all have NOOOOOOO idea about how the law works.

And I love how you claim others don't understand the law, and yet use the word "stealing" in a situation where it is entirely inapplicable.

No, I don't give a single fuck about your morals, it's the law that matters here, and downloading stuff off of the internet isn't stealing, it's infringement of copyright.

It also makes me giggle that you're apparently all for content creator's rights, but you'd still be willing to do something as abominable as butcher a perfectly good TV show to make it "family friendly".

I know better then to feed the trolls (your avatar gives it away), but here I go again.

Yes, stealing is the applicable word for layman (common) language. You take something that you do not have the right to take, that is stealing. I do not now, nor will I ever see that differently. Do not tell me they "make enough" because they don't, studios have to pay bills, pay employees, pay distributors, ect. Then they money they do make is not all going to the CEOs and stockholder (usually, you only hear about the corrupt ones. BUT they still deserve their cut.). The money is going to make the next project.

As for the law, I am actively trying to change it to make it harder on digital theft. That is MY right as an American. You disagree with me, YOUR right as an American is to actively try and change the law to your liking. Whoever gets the most votes, gets their way (in a normal world, there are compromises).

As for the last point. I will be BUYING (crazy concept on the Internet) the rights to broadcast the shows. I will have the creators PERMISSION (egad, getting permission? Whats next? obeying the traffic laws? /sarcasm) Do not watch my network, please. I do not want your money. My target audience is people who want family friendly programing. I plan to advertise during the "700 Club" (Pat Robertson) and on the American Family Association networks. Again, watch TV on another internet TV website.

EDIT: I just noticed that you are not an American citizen. My apology for assuming. But that brings up the point that the internet is a strange thing that the traditional "Laws" have never seen. You could break a law in America, on American servers (in this case), and the victims are American citizens, but yet because no laws were broken "in" England (because all the crime happened in the US)?

Lets say that there is a nation, small, poor, little government (maybe a weak dictatorship), with no extradition treaties because no one noticed them till now. That nation passes a law saying that it is legal to commit any crimes on the Internet as long as you pay taxes on that money. How pissed would the world be? That country is now raking in millions of stolen money, and some is stolen from you (I assume you pay or will pay taxes). Now they can just buy off Black Market traders to get around the trade restriction (UN sanctions, after the thieves stole from them too) and 'magic jumping beans' the worlds economy gets broken again.

Faulty Turmoil:

Gilhelmi:
I love how 99% of y'all have NOOOOOOO idea about how the law works.

I admit to not knowing much about the law but I know commonsense. Stealing is wrong, posting links to places that are giving away stolen data is wrong. Do not tell me differently, because I know that in the next ten years legitimate TV networks will go to an "all online" approach. Why does that matter? BECAUSE NO ONE WILL BUY IT LEGALLY IF THE DAME PIRATES ARE GIVING IT AWAY. That means no more new TV programs or worse (only lame crap that is a remake of a remake).

Pirates are already giving it away. People are still buying the stuff though. That argument has already been proven wrong.

You can pirate Blops2, but look at that, it's still sold a *expletive deleted* of games and broken records.

No it has not. The majority of people are law-abiding citizens, so the majority will obey the law, IF they understand it. Most people do not yet know that most of these kind of streaming TV site are illegally run. And unless you know how to tell you do not know if the site is being run legally.

I will admit to exaggerating a bit with the "NO ONE", but even a 20% loss is still meaning that the next project is going to have that much less money to create things with.

Gilhelmi:
Snip

Oh wow, really?

This post is so full of holes it's like a child wrote it

Anyway, let's get to work

Brace yourself, it's gonna be a long one.

Gilhelmi:

I know better then to feed the trolls (your avatar gives it away)

Oh Damn, you saw through my clever ruse.

And I went through such trouble to conceal it too.

Gilhelmi:
Yes, stealing is the applicable word for layman (common) language. You take something that you do not have the right to take, that is stealing. I do not now, nor will I ever see that differently

Colloquial language is not an excuse for being deceptive.

Theft implies the loss of a resource. If I steal your car then you don't have that car anymore, if I copy a MP3 file the original file is still right there, the only loss is a potential sale, and the possibility is there that I might not have had the money to pay for the MP3 anyway, in which case absolutely nothing is lost.

There is a reason that there is and should be a clear line between theft and copyright infringement, ignore reality if you like, but don't waste your time trying to change the definition of words through sheer force of will

Gilhelmi:
Do not tell me they "make enough" because they don't, studios have to pay bills, pay employees, pay distributors, ect. Then they money they do make is not all going to the CEOs and stockholder (usually, you only hear about the corrupt ones. BUT they still deserve their cut.). The money is going to make the next project.

I'm not even gonna get into this crap, suffice it to say that profits in all entertainment industries are higher than they've ever been before. Entertainment is NOT getting shallower and cheaper today because of lack of money, it's getting shallower and cheaper because they know they can get away with it and still rake in mountains of dosh. In very few instances is modern TV even slightly expensive to produce, the amount of money being pocketed is vastly out of proportion.

Gilhelmi:
As for the law, I am actively trying to change it to make it harder on digital theft. That is MY right as an American. You disagree with me, YOUR right as an American is to actively try and change the law to your liking. Whoever gets the most votes, gets their way (in a normal world, there are compromises).

"Harder on digital theft"?*

Are you fucking kidding me?

Do you have any idea about the state of affair right now?

Right now the possible punishments for piracy are so fucking ludicrous that it's laughable. The way the law is right now a company that discovers that someone pirated their music is legally able to sue that person, for 150,000 bucks per song, PER COPY (that means $300,000 if you have a copy on you PC and your iPod)

The problem is not, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, that the laws aren't tough enough**. It's that the law is entirely unenforceable because of the rapidity of the crimes, the benign nature of the crimes and the fact that proving who actually committed any given act of copyright infringement is damn near impossible.

Also, I love this whole "B-But I'll write my congressman" thing your class of American always pulls out.

Who exactly do you think your congressman is gonna listen to: The lobbyist that lines his pockets with millions of dollars every year, or one of the THOUSANDS of people who write him letter that get "cataloged"*** and never read.

Of course in this case you're lucky because the you and the big business lobbyist pretty much want your congressman to do the exact same thing.

*It's still not theft by the way.
**The laws are in fact so tough that it makes them even more unenforceable, seeing how if they WERE enforced, almost every American alive would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and more than likely go to prison.
***Probably in the bin.

Gilhelmi:
As for the last point. I will be BUYING (crazy concept on the Internet) the rights to broadcast the shows. I will have the creators PERMISSION (egad, getting permission? Whats next? obeying the traffic laws? /sarcasm) Do not watch my network, please. I do not want your money. My target audience is people who want family friendly programing. I plan to advertise during the "700 Club" (Pat Robertson) and on the American Family Association networks. Again, watch TV on another internet TV website.

Oh aren't you so cute with your dysfunctional little attempts at sarcasm.

Anyway, point 1.: You are not buying permission from the content creators, you are buying permission from the people who own the rights, which is almost never ever the actual creators.
Point 2.: I'm sorry that I misspoke in my original response, seeing how you are obviously not for the rights of content creators, you are for the rights of the monolithic companies that use those content creators.
Point 3.: Once (If) TV does go all online, advertising will be a dead way of making profits, at least on the scale that big cable networks need to make money. People won't be sitting around between programs, and people can (and will) just pull up another window if there are pre-roll or mid-show ads that you can't just skip or block. And don't tell me they're gonna make money from banner ads, even you can't be THAT dense.
Point 4.: Even IF advertising was a reliable way of making money once things go all online, what in the holy mother of fuck makes you think that they'll be interested in allowing OTHER TV sites to have ads on THEIR TV site? So you can drive traffic away from them? Fuck no, and even if that wasn't the case, a small independent site wouldn't have the money to advertise during a show as big as The 700 club.

Gilhelmi:
EDIT: I just noticed that you are not an American citizen. My apology for assuming. But that brings up the point that the internet is a strange thing that the traditional "Laws" have never seen. You could break a law in America, on American servers (in this case), and the victims are American citizens, but yet because no laws were broken "in" England (because all the crime happened in the US)?

First of all, you have no idea how these laws work.

So long as the ACT is illegal in England he will still face prosecution (IN ENGLAND), it doesn't matter one bit where the servers were. Also, in the case this thread was actually about, the servers were NOT in America, they were in Britain.

The reason this guy shouldn't be extradited to the US is the same reason that a US citizen shouldn't be extradited to Iran for saying something mean about Islam, or that a Swede shouldn't be extradited to North Korea for making fun of Kim Jong Ill on his Facebook.

Gilhelmi:
Lets say that there is a nation, small, poor, little government (maybe a weak dictatorship), with no extradition treaties because no one noticed them till now. That nation passes a law saying that it is legal to commit any crimes on the Internet as long as you pay taxes on that money. How pissed would the world be? That country is now raking in millions of stolen money, and some is stolen from you (I assume you pay or will pay taxes). Now they can just buy off Black Market traders to get around the trade restriction (UN sanctions, after the thieves stole from them too) and 'magic jumping beans' the worlds economy gets broken again.

Now this is the meat of it all, I've honestly been looking forward to this all through my reply.

This analogy is so childishly moronic it's just marvelous.

Okay, to start off "No one noticed them"? On what planet do you live? Because in this world where I exist, people don't generally not notice nations springing up and existing without anyone taking notice.

"Raking in millions of stolen money": okay ignoring the bad grammar, HOW? What the flying fuck are they making money on?

Are they pirating software? How are they making money on that? Are they stealing credit card information or doing illegitimate transfers? All those transactions could simply be voided.

There is no POSSIBLE way that a country could simply make all it's money by "committing crimes" on the internet, it's the most laughably stupid thing I've ever heard used as an "argument" (if you can call it that) about piracy.

"worlds economy gets broken again": This is really what convinces me that you simply MUST be a child. Do you have even the SLIGHTEST concept of the scale that the global economy works on? Just as an example, the relief packages that were used to try to get Greece's economy back on track were in the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF EUROS, and guess what? IT STILL DIDN'T WORK!

A tiny country "committing crimes" would not effect the world economy is even most the minute way.

There's so much wrong with this post that I feel like going on, but frankly this reply is already waaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

Stay safe Kiddo.

Oh wait, you made another post?

BONUS ROUND:

Gilhelmi:
Most people do not yet know that most of these kind of streaming TV site are illegally run.

Yes, yes they do.

There have been giant campaigns to inform people, there is NO excuse (Beyond being a fucking 4 year old) for not knowing how to recognize whether a site is legit.

bringer of illumination:

Gilhelmi:
EPIC SNIP

I swear, I read your post fully. I just did not care anymore.

The only thing I will speak on is the "Iran" point you tried to make. This guy is not being accused of "liable" or insulting the US, He is accused of copyright infringement (or stealing, as I call it).

I did reread the original article, hmm I swore it was American servers. Oh well. The Internet does need to be 'owned' by some nation, the criminal element is getting out of hand (my opinion again).

So why not America? We invented the Internet. There is no really good organization that is not run (or strongly influenced by) one nation. Nations can control and own land. Why not declare officially that the US owns the legal rights to the Internet?

FYI: I am starting a new thread in Religion and Politics for this last part. See ya there.

Gilhelmi:

bringer of illumination:

Gilhelmi:
EPIC SNIP

I swear, I read your post fully. I just did not care anymore.

Or is it because he fucking destroyed your argument?

Cyrus Hanley:

Gilhelmi:

bringer of illumination:

I swear, I read your post fully. I just did not care anymore.

Or is it because he fucking destroyed your argument?

Oh no, you flatter me sir.

T'was really nothing special.

bringer of illumination:
... I did reread the original article, hmm I swore it was American servers. Oh well. The Internet does need to be 'owned' by some nation, the criminal element is getting out of hand (my opinion again).

So why not America? We invented the Internet. There is no really good organization that is not run (or strongly influenced by) one nation. Nations can control and own land. Why not declare officially that the US owns the legal rights to the Internet?

FYI: I am starting a new thread in Religion and Politics for this last part. See ya there.

Technically America does own the internet. Right now it's being operated under contract from the USA's Department of Commerce by IANA and ICANN. It is a worldwide resource but being managed with "American Interests." The IANA and ICANN exist as a private non-profit corporation but as said earlier, they're under contract. Now with that in mind, servers and plenty of other hardware exist overseas and fall into jurisdiction of their regional/local laws. The crime may not happen in America but seeing how it is supporting the world they should have some authority to step in. I would just like it to be less severe for silly infractions like this.

Deshin:

Karloff:
O'Dwyer does still have to go to the US, but only to sign the documentation which, among other stipulations, makes him promise not to infringe copyright again.

image

I still don't see why extradition was even possible in the first place. If he was breaking laws then isn't it his own country's responsibility to prosecute and charge? I'm reminded of one case where the U.S. tried to sue someone in the U.K. for illegally sharing Beatles music but he was well within legality as under U.K. law the number of years for art to become free cultural heritage property had been reached and so his sharing was perfectly legal.

I really do get the feeling the U.S. tries to overstep its boundaries when it comes to everything copyright infringement. All this is going to do is make more people actively try to block the U.S. from accessing the site like Kim Dotcom has promised with his new Mega site; but if this is the case isn't this just an inverse version of Chin's Great Firewall? Only instead of putting up blockades because they don't want their own citizens to access certain files everyone else is blocking them because they're afraid they're going to come stomping in their own backyard and sue the pants off of them?

Perplexes me too, if I recall correctly this guy actually didn't do damn thing wrong under UK law. Hence the outrage over the whole thing. We have pretty grey copyright laws over here, at least compared to the US...

Edit: The internet was first developed by international physicists and technicians working at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, as a method for the quick sharing of data and important files over long distances, because the facility (I have been and I can vouch for this) is absolutely enormous and takes hours to ride a bike around, let alone walk to some dude on the other side to give him your data. Hence they made a contained internet for the express purpose of sharing data.

Twas not invented by "America", though some Americans were involved in the process, as were people of many nationalities. It should stand as a glorious symbol of what we can do when we stop being twats and co-operate for once.

Eventually this became what Freakazoid predicted it would and yeah, people ruin everything!

bringer of illumination:

It also makes me giggle that you're apparently all for content creator's rights, but you'd still be willing to do something as abominable as butcher a perfectly good TV show to make it "family friendly".

They butcher stuff to make it friendly for Americans too. Because blood and smoking are morally wrong but you can make all the dick jokes you want on TV.

Seriously, One Piece censorship, that shit was too far.

Karloff:
If that truly is so, it would seem the US authorities are cooling on the idea; a quick trip to New York and a fine isn't that frightening.

Assuming they stick to the deal, once he's in NY there is nothing to stop them simply arresting him and neatly side stepping any kind of extradition process.

What should be frightening is that the US judiciary is applying it's laws internationally. That America is apparently able to apply it's criminal law to people who are not American, have never entered America, don't do business in America and have commited no crime at all in their home country should be utterly terrifying to everyone.

Copyright infringement is normally a civil matter in the UK, the various parties after this kid should have sued him, he wasn't making counterfeit goods so as far as a criminal case goes he has nothing to answer for. He should never have even been arrested, but there you go, 'Murica wants, 'Murica gets.

Gilhelmi:
snip

Ahh god I needed a good laugh, thank you for that.

I am glad the congressman for my area is smart enough to know that the laws on the subject are already pants on head retarded and is working to fix them, not make them worse.

bringer of illumination:
godly snip

image

A truly masterful post sir! And quite the fitting screen name to go along with it!

Bravo! Bravo!

 Pages PREV 1 2

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
Registered for a free account here