Extradition for copywrite infringement

Rhodri2311 said:
And yet if there was an American doing this to the UK they wouldn't be extradited, it makes no sense & is very unfair for this to be a one-way street.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? It isn't like the extradition treaty is one way. Something like 30 people have been extardited to the UK from the US under it.
 
Tbh the whole thing is a mess, the extradition treaty is a mess, the variances in copyright law globally make it wholly unsuited to the global-access technology which is rapidly out-pacing it, much as that technology is rapidly rendering the anachronistic business models and per-region licencing of the old business models operated by the stuidoes etc obselete and irrelevant.
 
What I don't get is this, what is it he's done that's illegal? From what I've read, all he's done is supply links to things. Has he actually broken the law by doing that, surely the people who consciously sought out, clicked on and downloaded from the links are the ones that the authorities should be be chasing, not this guy.

Then again, that would be too much like hard work when they already have a scapegoat they can throw the book at.
 
Uther said:
With a case currently going through the courts about a British man facing extradition to the US for the above 'offense' I was just wondering how many Americans are currently fighting off extradition to the UK, or is this a one way street for our American friends?
Click to expand...

There have been 117 extraditions since 2004 to the US and 57 from the US to the UK....in fact the only country to refuse any extraditions is the UK with 9...

or at least that is what was reported on the news.
 
I sick the the back teeth of America and its backwards attempts to both censor the Internet (a la SOPA/PIPA) and impose its will on the world. All thanks to Congress being in the pockets of the media cartels.

Oh and our spineless Government isn't helping matters. The one sided extradition law needs repealing for starters.
 
Malevolence said:
What I don't get is this, what is it he's done that's illegal? From what I've read, all he's done is supply links to things. Has he actually broken the law by doing that, surely the people who consciously sought out, clicked on and downloaded from the links are the ones that the authorities should be be chasing, not this guy.

Then again, that would be too much like hard work when they already have a scapegoat they can throw the book at.
Click to expand...

He was seen to be benefiting financially from the website due to the advertising that it carried.

The old realworld.de hashsite was bought down in the same way.
 
Castiel said:
Yet no charges have been bought against him by the British Authorities.....

Since when is a British Subject and Citizen subject to US laws whilst living and remaining in Britain? If he had physically committed a crime in the US then he would be subject to their laws...however he did not, any crime that he may of committed was committed in the UK....so it is a matter for UK Law....simple as that.

this is a case for UK Courts, not for US courts to try.

This decision will most likely get overturned on appeal....and the Govt should be repealing this ridiculous and one sided treaty as a matter of urgency.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, he should be facing uk crimes, but those crimes don't realy exist yet in the uk. So untill they are he shouldn't be in court full stop.
 
kayomani said:
Another link for the lazy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003, damn thing isnt even reciprocal!

That extradition act needs scrapping in its current form as I think it should only apply where acts committed in the UK are in violation of criminal law. Copyright is only civil isnt it?
Click to expand...

Yeah this is the cusp of it IMO - if its a criminal offence then fair enough but a civil matter should be handled entire in the UK.
 
well...all fine. He might not have been in the US phsyically but if his transactions or digital movement was in the US then yes he should have to pay the penalty....

However.... if all he did was setup a UK site which was merely accessible to those in the US (add any other country etc) and did not break a UK law in the operation of said site...then NO he should not be extradited. In other words if he did not encroach digitally upon US territories then how is a law broken by him?

The US should be going after those WHO ARE encroaching digitally upon US territories and breaking US laws by doing so ie those clicking on the links, downloading the films etc


Perhaps in this the US is seeing what this chap did as sort of aiding and abetting a crime? Ie he is supporting lawbreaking by providing the links. He may not be doing it himself but he is pretty much inviting people to break the law and providing an easy means for them to do so.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Yet no charges have been bought against him by the British Authorities.....

Since when is a British Subject and Citizen subject to US laws whilst living and remaining in Britain? If he had physically committed a crime in the US then he would be subject to their laws...however he did not, any crime that he may of committed was committed in the UK....so it is a matter for UK Law....simple as that.

this is a case for UK Courts, not for US courts to try.

This decision will most likely get overturned on appeal....and the Govt should be repealing this ridiculous and one sided treaty as a matter of urgency.
Click to expand...

The illusion is shattered. :(
 
orderoftheflame said:
If I hired someone to kill someone else in the USA should I be immune from US because I wasn't there? Bad example maybe..

If the reports are reliable he pocketed the big bucks because of this websites advertising. Why should he get off free because our laws are terrible surrounding this?
Click to expand...

But hiring some one to kill another person is a criminal offence in the UK. :confused:
 
The article doesn't state where the website was physically hosted. Given that US customs received a warrant I assume the server was physically hosted in the US and therefore subject to US law?

The American laws are silly, but if he hosted the website there then he was also silly.
 
Corporate Fascism 101, national boundaries are irrelevant when global corporate entities are the real power behind governments. I guess we could tell them to sod off but then they might decide to liberate us all from David Cameron and co. :p
 
Sure, what he did was naughty, but not illegal here. If our citizens are to be subject to US law, then it should work both ways, and anyone over there in posession of a handgun should be imprisoned.

Stupid extradition treaty is stupid.
 
I wonder whether there would be enough support to get the required signatures on an online petition for discussion in parliament? This arrangement is fundamentally wrong and it's being mirrored in NZ as is discussed in the MegaUpload thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom