British Student Loses Extradition Battle Over Copyright Violation

[Xan Krieger]

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.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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.

 

[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?

 

[mega48man]

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.

 

[Awexsome]

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.

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.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

 

[K_Dub]

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.

 

[RaNDM G]

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.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

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.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

 

[Bluecho]

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.

 

[Sabinfrost]

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

 

[1337mokro]

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.

 

[Trillovinum]

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 km²
61.113.205 inhabitants (2009)
GDP 2.772.570 (U.S. dollars)

United States:

9.629.091 km²
307.212.123 inhabitants (2009)
GDP 13.843.825(U.S. dollars)

You were saying?

 

[Ruwrak]

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.

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.

 

[hooksashands]

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.

 

[draythefingerless]

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.

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?

 

[LITE992]

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

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

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.

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.

 

[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 km²
61.113.205 inhabitants (2009)
GDP 2.772.570 (U.S. dollars)

United States:

9.629.091 km²
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.