British Student Loses Extradition Battle Over Copyright Violation

[Thaliur]

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".

They are going on the basis that it was still had to route through the US in Virginia, meaning the Federal Court would be New York City.

Many E-Mails between me and my girlfriend might get routed through servers in fundamentalist states. Does that mean they have the right to put us both in prison because we are not married?

 

[Vkmies]

Take my word as it is, A word of a person who never studied law or doesn'tlive in the UK or the US, but to me it seems that America is playing the world police again.

 

[Starke]

Definitely a tricky one. While he is most certainly guilty, I don't think he should be extradited on such a (comparatively) weak basis - "he's never been to the states and TVShack didn't use US servers" should mean he can only be prosecuted by more relevant authorities - would it be that different if he had chosen a different suffix?

On the other hand, being a UK citizen myself, I am almost definitely biased, and the question over where US jurisdiction begins and ends has been going on for a long time. I have also not studied internet law, just a few months on contract and delict/tort (negligence and compensation) law. Going into criminal law next semester, so I may one day have actual authority on what I babble on here!

Well, I'm a US citizen myself, and this extradition worries the shit out of me. The main reasons is jurisdiction. Even if you can make a coherent argument that the US had any jurisdiction in this case, extraditing on a copyright infringement case is insane.

Granted American courts aren't horribly corrupt, and judges are getting sick and tired of having to preside over flimsily structured infringement cases. So once he does get here, the case could quite reasonably be tossed on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

 

[Starke]

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?

In point of fact, this isn't how this usually works. Usually these cases don't result in an extradition, it simply results in a charge, or tort, against the infringer in their own country. Extraditing someone over a copyright infringement charge is, well, downright bizarre.

 

[harvz]

yeah, shouldn't have even been given a second thought, should have been done by the local courts.

i do find it a little annoying, the British people here are upset, the Americans are apologizing and what should i do? I'm aussie, so i guess i should be a little upset and a little apologetic?

 

[IceStar100]

Hey Uk how it feel to be Amrican *****.

Ok had to get that out of my system. Now to the real part. This is BS when did USA become world police. We would never turn over a citizen ever. When a goverment can no longer protect it's people a goverment has failed it's only reason to exzist.

 

[godofallu]

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 they time don't do the crime.

It isn't a crime in the UK. I'm also pretty sure that Google does this on a larger scale.[/quote]

Completely agree with Albino here, if you're going to make money by stealing other peoples work en mass and get away with it due to a loophole. Expect to be taken down by a loophole.

Oh and comparing Tv Shack to Google has got to be the stupidest reasoning I have ever heard. Google is a search engine designed to search for anything. Tv Shack is a website that hosts illegal streams. There is no legal use of Tv Shack.

Can't wait for the guy to get arrested. He was given too many warnings, and has hurt to many people to pity.

 

[seraphy]

Completely agree with Albino here, if you're going to make money by stealing other peoples work en mass and get away with it due to a loophole. Expect to be taken down by a loophole.

Oh and comparing Tv Shack to Google has got to be the stupidest reasoning I have ever heard. Google is a search engine designed to search for anything. Tv Shack is a website that hosts illegal streams. There is no legal use of Tv Shack.

Can't wait for the guy to get arrested. He was given too many warnings, and has hurt to many people to pity.

Expect you know TV shack didn't host anything.

Also he didn't do anything illegal in his own country. I am sure many US citizens would be thrilled for being extradited to say saudi arabia for breaking their puplic decency laws, in US where their behaviour isn't actually crime.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Definitely a tricky one. While he is most certainly guilty, I don't think he should be extradited on such a (comparatively) weak basis - "he's never been to the states and TVShack didn't use US servers" should mean he can only be prosecuted by more relevant authorities - would it be that different if he had chosen a different suffix?

On the other hand, being a UK citizen myself, I am almost definitely biased, and the question over where US jurisdiction begins and ends has been going on for a long time. I have also not studied internet law, just a few months on contract and delict/tort (negligence and compensation) law. Going into criminal law next semester, so I may one day have actual authority on what I babble on here!

Unless it's directly through a U.S. network, the U.S. should have no right to extradite someone on such weak grounds as these...

Frankly, as an American, this is sickening to see our country do something like this...

I wouldn't say its a UK bias on your part, I'd say its common sense.

 

[Seraj]

Signed, maybe its just a public stunt to scare other pirates?

But seriously, why does the US think it is its responsibility to watch over the internet?

I mean, does it realise how jerk-like it makes it look to the rest of the world?

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.

The UK has always been spineless unless its up against smaller countries ^_^ Then we go all macho.

 

[Trillovinum]

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.

there's still the element that as a smaller country it isn't easy to ignore one of the worlds greatest powers.

They'll just force you.(wiki-leaks debacle *cough cough*)

so I'm sorry to say this but: your argument is invalid

 

[Akimoto]

Well, this is a trial born to fail.

I hope you're right.

 

[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?

In point of fact, this isn't how this usually works. Usually these cases don't result in an extradition, it simply results in a charge, or tort, against the infringer in their own country. Extraditing someone over a copyright infringement charge is, well, downright bizarre.

The problem is that, like I stated, there doesn't seem to be a complete agreement over local vs international law. If the UK local law was in agreement then he would probably be tried in the UK, but the UK courts don't see it as their problem and thus are allowing the extradition.
Is he probably being set up as an example to others that companies are willing to pursue their claimed damages to the fullest extent of the law, most definitely. But the thing to note is that they are doing it within the legal boundaries.
I just don't think that the US should be seated with all the blame and be demonized because they are working within the law that several countries agreed upon; and it is sad that people can't really get the concept of you can break international laws.

I like this quote from troll news on a similar matter regarding PonyArchive(dot)org to basically summarize my point.
"Apparently Pony Archive was trying to argue that they are not based in US so US law doesn't apply to them. That would be cool argument unless they wouldn't be violating international copyright law. It's not like Pirate Bay, they are careful not to violate international copyright law. Get over it Pony Archive and be happy they didn't sue you. If you want to fuck with corporation study laws first. Because they did.

 

[Darth_Dude]

Stupid American Government sticking their fat noses in everything...

 

[Diplian]

Silly America with their silly world police.
and silly UK with a poor legal system it seems.

>Here goes a line which says something witty about how mainland europe is so much better<

but yes apperently this site just functioned as a google for torrents and as such didnt host anything, so why is this guy being extradited?

 

[snfonseka]

"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." - What the heck is this? I cannot understand this argument. It seems like UK justice system doesn't have any backbone.

 

[Starke]

The problem is that, like I stated, there doesn't seem to be a complete agreement over local vs international law. If the UK local law was in agreement then he would probably be tried in the UK, but the UK courts don't see it as their problem and thus are allowing the extradition.
Is he probably being set up as an example to others that companies are willing to pursue their claimed damages to the fullest extent of the law, most definitely. But the thing to note is that they are doing it within the legal boundaries.
I just don't think that the US should be seated with all the blame and be demonized because they are working within the law that several countries agreed upon; and it is sad that people can't really get the concept of you can break international laws.

I like this quote from troll news on a similar matter regarding PonyArchive(dot)org to basically summarize my point.
"Apparently Pony Archive was trying to argue that they are not based in US so US law doesn't apply to them. That would be cool argument unless they wouldn't be violating international copyright law. It's not like Pirate Bay, they are careful not to violate international copyright law. Get over it Pony Archive and be happy they didn't sue you. If you want to fuck with corporation study laws first. Because they did.

The sort of tragically hilarious thing in this is there really isn't a written international law in most cases. International Law tends to come from one of two places, either a treaty, in this case the US/UK extradition treaty, apparently, and tradition. Obviously there are some exceptions, but by and large international law when it comes to intellectual property come from specific treaties.

It's still pretty damn weird though, I mean, this is an extradition over what is, in all likelihood a misdemeanor.

 

[FamoFunk]

Bullshit. So fucking angry with the UK being such pussies and not telling the US to go fuck themselves. And also the US for thinking it owns and can do whatever it wants with the world.

 

[OldGus]

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 they time don't do the crime.

It isn't a crime in the UK. I'm also pretty sure that Google does this on a larger scale.

I second, third, and hell, 47th this. Its a no-brainer that just as much as Google is used to look up recipes, how-to guides, and lolcats, its used to look for porn and torrents. People have probably tried looking for local drug dealers on Google.

As an American, I have to sit here and scratch my head over one thing (in between hanging/holding it)... He's a UK citizen and resident being tried for a crime in America. The rights of the accused, if I remember right, apply to US citizens, residents, visa holders, and prisoners of war only. I don't think he is any of the above, which if the court he goes to has the right judge in the right pockets, could be bad I imagine. I don't know, do they give you a visa with the extradition? Furthermore, assuming it goes through and corporate lawyers warp the system enough to get him convicted, how is that going to work out? Special visa status just to serve time? Serving time in one of the US-operated foreign prisons? Any specialists in international law here?

Edit 1:

The sort of tragically hilarious thing in this is there really isn't a written international law in most cases. International Law tends to come from one of two places, either a treaty, in this case the US/UK extradition treaty, apparently, and tradition. Obviously there are some exceptions, but by and large international law when it comes to intellectual property come from specific treaties.

It's still pretty damn weird though, I mean, this is an extradition over what is, in all likelihood a misdemeanor.

Thank you. Less confusion and brain pain, more questions that probably don't have answers.

I am still proud to be an American, but dammit, the legal system is no one's plaything! So butt out, corporate America! And if any lawyer, or representative of the entertainment industry says something along the lines of 'let them watch it on their local network,' or 'let them buy the season on 3D Bluray,' I am 10,000% behind an International-legal smackdown.

Edit 2:

Bullshit. So fucking angry with the UK being such pussies and not telling the US to go fuck themselves. And also the US for thinking it owns and can do whatever it wants with the world.

Stupid American Government sticking their fat noses in everything...

Seriously guys? It's not the US Government thinking they own the world, and sticking its nose in things. It's the rich-a$$ entertainment industry of America trying to play themselves as poor, starving artists just trying to earn a fair wage while they make the world a brighter place.

The same ones that believe in the rich-bastard variant of the golden rule -- grease enough palms, and no one cares what the rules are.

I will thank you for not blaming the American people. It's kind of a relief when people are angry at my country and not me, especially when I don't even live there.

 

[Matthew Lynch]

Completely agree with Albino here, if you're going to make money by stealing other peoples work en mass and get away with it due to a loophole. Expect to be taken down by a loophole.

Oh and comparing Tv Shack to Google has got to be the stupidest reasoning I have ever heard. Google is a search engine designed to search for anything. Tv Shack is a website that hosts illegal streams. There is no legal use of Tv Shack.

Can't wait for the guy to get arrested. He was given too many warnings, and has hurt to many people to pity.

Expect you know TV shack didn't host anything.

Also he didn't do anything illegal in his own country. I am sure many US citizens would be thrilled for being extradited to say saudi arabia for breaking their puplic decency laws, in US where their behaviour isn't actually crime.

Indeed...this sounds to me like I.C.E wanted to look like they made progress. They can;t catch the actual pirates? No problem...they'll arrest some poor shmuck who was linking to their sites instead.