British Student Loses Extradition Battle Over Copyright Violation

[J Tyran]

The other irritating thing with this case is the cost to British legal system, both in court costs and legal aid costs for the defendants.

I bet the corporations behind the charges are not interested enough in paying their way or fairness to refund the British taxpayers.

 

[Atmos Duality]

What happens when Big Business decides that their legal matters matter more than, well, anything else.

It's such a bitter world where that sort of white-collar crime carries a far more harsh real-life punishment than brutalizing a person to the point they can't walk right.

 

[Cyberjester]

Why hasn't he claimed unfair trial? USA courts are known to be biased against copyright (SOPA/PIPA should be a good instance of big businesses gaming the system), which would have to be settled before he got extradited. Should be enough to keep him in Britain.

 

[Cyberjester]

wow, now the US thinks it has the authority to try someone from across the pond? They should get over their fucking selves, this is giving many americans a terrible image

Americans*

Although "USA'ians" would be closer given there's over twenty countries in the Americas.
I know, everyone does it so it's okay. But then again, every company likes to protect their copyright by suing people in their early twenties for millions of dollars. So it's okay for them, yea?

 

[Aesthetical Quietus]

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 main problem here is the extradition and the precedence it sets, not the piracy.

So how is this different from the recent Duchess of York extradition? "The Home Office said that as the charge does not constitute an offence under UK law, she cannot be removed from Britain to face trial in Turkey." - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9016374/Turkish-government-presses-ahead-with-case-against-Duchess-of-York-despite-extradition-doubts.html

So why then if this doesn't constitute an offence under UK law is he facing the possibility of extradition?

 

[Youdonotexist]

This is fucking ridiculous. I have a question, WHY IS ANYONE TAKING AMERICAN LEGAL DECISIONS SERIOUSLY?

Why the hell should they have this authority over everyone alse? Is this the 20th century where countries could still boss others around based on military and economic strength?

I thought we'd outgrown this stupid bullshit but apparently I was wrong.

You, wrong? Hmph.

Why? Because there are treaties in place between the two countries allowing for extradition and promotion the mutual protection of intellectual property rights. The adhere to these treaties we are able to extradite people across national boundaries for crimes committed over national borders. In addition to mere copyright violation crimes such as the digital transmission of child pornography, banking fraud, identity theft and other crimes easily conducted over the internet may or may not be covered by international treaties.

As long as an formally backed asymmetrical trade system exists between two countries one will be able and more than willing to boss the other one around. Furthermore any significant corporate entity has the ability to effect policy via direct bribery, lobbying or economic incentives.

You sir, truly are the master of speaking long and saying nothing at all. You should be a politician. Well that's not entirely fair, you pointed out quite a lot of things that prove my point.

My comment was meant to imply that I am against a goverment being able to arrest a member of another country for things that are perfectly legal in their homeland. Please do note the legal part because I'm not quite sure you understand. As long as there is no law against what he is doing in HIS country, it is my opinion that he should be either left alone or the law should be changed. The fact that it's illegal somewhere else is irrelevant. Bending a picture of kim yong il is illegal in North Korea but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to piss on a painting of him if I really wanted to. If you wish to make an argument against my opinion you are more than welcome to do so, but don't lecture me about things that I already know.

And as I said (in my opinion) america lost the right to any sort of respect for their political system or legal system a while ago. But if any person from england that I've ever heard say anything about their goverment is to be believed, than so did they.

Really? The guy explained it perfectly.
Your post just shows that you don't get the explanation.
Your North Korean example: We don't uphold that law because the countries didn't agree on upholding that law internationally.
However in the case of copyright infringement there is an international agreement upon it. Whether you break it at home or infringe upon a company that is overseas you are still breaking the international law.
There really isn't much more to say besides this is a very basic concept of law that everyone should have to understand, and if you don't understand this basic principle then you really shouldn't be commentating on law.

Well that would explain it perfectly if it were not for the fact that the only international copyright agreement signed by the UK (The berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works) doesn't cover this situation. The law that says that what he is doing is illegal is an american one.

Ooh, the Berne convention. Good one, well played, sir, well played.

But you forgot the Extradition Act of 2003 which does allow for extradition requests to be filed against British citizens who've committed crimes against citizens of "category 2" countries (Like the USA) under the definition of law by those category 2 counties. The act gives the (British) judge a fair bit of leeway in the extradition hearing, but this is all above board and supported by duly ratified and legally binding agreement.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

This is fucking ridiculous. I have a question, WHY IS ANYONE TAKING AMERICAN LEGAL DECISIONS SERIOUSLY?

Why the hell should they have this authority over everyone alse? Is this the 20th century where countries could still boss others around based on military and economic strength?

I thought we'd outgrown this stupid bullshit but apparently I was wrong.

You, wrong? Hmph.

Why? Because there are treaties in place between the two countries allowing for extradition and promotion the mutual protection of intellectual property rights. The adhere to these treaties we are able to extradite people across national boundaries for crimes committed over national borders. In addition to mere copyright violation crimes such as the digital transmission of child pornography, banking fraud, identity theft and other crimes easily conducted over the internet may or may not be covered by international treaties.

As long as an formally backed asymmetrical trade system exists between two countries one will be able and more than willing to boss the other one around. Furthermore any significant corporate entity has the ability to effect policy via direct bribery, lobbying or economic incentives.

You sir, truly are the master of speaking long and saying nothing at all. You should be a politician. Well that's not entirely fair, you pointed out quite a lot of things that prove my point.

My comment was meant to imply that I am against a goverment being able to arrest a member of another country for things that are perfectly legal in their homeland. Please do note the legal part because I'm not quite sure you understand. As long as there is no law against what he is doing in HIS country, it is my opinion that he should be either left alone or the law should be changed. The fact that it's illegal somewhere else is irrelevant. Bending a picture of kim yong il is illegal in North Korea but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to piss on a painting of him if I really wanted to. If you wish to make an argument against my opinion you are more than welcome to do so, but don't lecture me about things that I already know.

And as I said (in my opinion) america lost the right to any sort of respect for their political system or legal system a while ago. But if any person from england that I've ever heard say anything about their goverment is to be believed, than so did they.

Really? The guy explained it perfectly.
Your post just shows that you don't get the explanation.
Your North Korean example: We don't uphold that law because the countries didn't agree on upholding that law internationally.
However in the case of copyright infringement there is an international agreement upon it. Whether you break it at home or infringe upon a company that is overseas you are still breaking the international law.
There really isn't much more to say besides this is a very basic concept of law that everyone should have to understand, and if you don't understand this basic principle then you really shouldn't be commentating on law.

Well that would explain it perfectly if it were not for the fact that the only international copyright agreement signed by the UK (The berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works) doesn't cover this situation. The law that says that what he is doing is illegal is an american one.

Ooh, the Berne convention. Good one, well played, sir, well played.

But you forgot the Extradition Act of 2003 which does allow for extradition requests to be filed against British citizens who've committed crimes against citizens of "category 2" countries (Like the USA) under the definition of law by those category 2 counties. The act gives the (British) judge a fair bit of leeway in the extradition hearing, but this is all above board and supported by duly ratified and legally binding agreement.

Huh. Didn't know that.

I still say it's stupid though.

 

[Olrod]

Did they arrest the people behind Google, too?

Or are they just hypocritical [***things that are too obscene to post***]

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17355203

Well, looks like he's getting extradited, poor guy. Nice to know that our government will support and protect its citizens, hmm?