British Student Loses Extradition Battle Over Copyright Violation

Adincha

New member
Apr 11, 2011
8
0
0
Frankster said:
mad825 said:
emeraldrafael said:
Nol because this isnt bullying. I've laready said this. the US is given the power tod o this, it didnt take it. after WW2 (which is when most people like to say the US started policing the world) there were a few countries that could have policed the world. in fact thats the reason we have the UN, so countries dont do this. If the UN (and much of the world) is too incompetent to do its job and say no, then you cant blame someone who does their job for them when they're giving the power to.
Euh no, US took the power violently and can even tell you when it happened. After ww2 USA didn't become number 1 all of a sudden and the previous dominant powers, uk and france for example, didnt just roll over and pass the torch to the US.

The turning point was the canal de suez incident where the US threated to NUKE uk and french forces opposing them. This was the moment british and french power was permanently shattered and everyone realized it was the US calling the shots now.

I still think thats kinda a ***** move imo, "argue with us? we nuke you!". But hey thats the way the cookie crumbled.
Try doing your research on the Suez Crisis... Eisenhower ordered U-2's into the air above Egypt and Israel to make sure that the Soviet's didn't attack the British and French. He also stated that he was ready to go to war against the USSR if any aggressive actions were taken. Yes, the US opposed Anglo-Franco-Israeli forces during the crisis, but for a good reason. And after WW2 the US was the dominant power; mostly because it was the only economy not totally shattered by the war.

On topic:
Even if the US has legal grounds by which to do it (which it does) it is pathetic to go after crimes that are committed in other countries, especially when there are similar torrent sites based in America.
 

Adincha

New member
Apr 11, 2011
8
0
0
Frankster said:
mad825 said:
emeraldrafael said:
Nol because this isnt bullying. I've laready said this. the US is given the power tod o this, it didnt take it. after WW2 (which is when most people like to say the US started policing the world) there were a few countries that could have policed the world. in fact thats the reason we have the UN, so countries dont do this. If the UN (and much of the world) is too incompetent to do its job and say no, then you cant blame someone who does their job for them when they're giving the power to.
Euh no, US took the power violently and can even tell you when it happened. After ww2 USA didn't become number 1 all of a sudden and the previous dominant powers, uk and france for example, didnt just roll over and pass the torch to the US.

The turning point was the canal de suez incident where the US threated to NUKE uk and french forces opposing them. This was the moment british and french power was permanently shattered and everyone realized it was the US calling the shots now.

I still think thats kinda a ***** move imo, "argue with us? we nuke you!". But hey thats the way the cookie crumbled.
Try doing your research on the Suez Crisis... Eisenhower ordered U-2's into the air above Egypt and Israel to make sure that the Soviet's didn't attack the British and French. He also stated that he was ready to go to war against the USSR if any aggressive actions were taken. Yes, the US opposed Anglo-Franco-Israeli forces during the crisis, but for a good reason. And after WW2 the US was the dominant power; mostly because it was the only economy not totally shattered by the war.

On topic:
Even if the US has legal grounds by which to do it (which it does) it is pathetic to go after crimes that are committed in other countries, especially when there are similar torrent sites based in America.
 

Adincha

New member
Apr 11, 2011
8
0
0
Frankster said:
mad825 said:
emeraldrafael said:
Nol because this isnt bullying. I've laready said this. the US is given the power tod o this, it didnt take it. after WW2 (which is when most people like to say the US started policing the world) there were a few countries that could have policed the world. in fact thats the reason we have the UN, so countries dont do this. If the UN (and much of the world) is too incompetent to do its job and say no, then you cant blame someone who does their job for them when they're giving the power to.
Euh no, US took the power violently and can even tell you when it happened. After ww2 USA didn't become number 1 all of a sudden and the previous dominant powers, uk and france for example, didnt just roll over and pass the torch to the US.

The turning point was the canal de suez incident where the US threated to NUKE uk and french forces opposing them. This was the moment british and french power was permanently shattered and everyone realized it was the US calling the shots now.

I still think thats kinda a ***** move imo, "argue with us? we nuke you!". But hey thats the way the cookie crumbled.
Try doing your research on the Suez Crisis... Eisenhower ordered U-2's into the air above Egypt and Israel to make sure that the Soviet's didn't attack the British and French. He also stated that he was ready to go to war against the USSR if any aggressive actions were taken. Yes, the US opposed Anglo-Franco-Israeli forces during the crisis, but for a good reason. And after WW2 the US was the dominant power; mostly because it was the only economy not totally shattered by the war.

On topic:
Even if the US has legal grounds by which to do it (which it does) it is pathetic to go after crimes that are committed in other countries, especially when there are similar torrent sites based in America.
 

Adincha

New member
Apr 11, 2011
8
0
0
I would like to apologize for the 5 above, repeating comments, it was accidental and I can not figure out how to delete them
 

godofallu

New member
Jun 8, 2010
1,663
0
0
Shadie777 said:
godofallu said:
Except he did brake laws, international copyright laws that the UK has officially agreed to, and he was always bound to. His website was brought down before, his house raided. He knew what he was doing wasn't legal, but the money blinded him.
Even if he did break a law , he still should not have be extradited. He did this on UK soil and did not use a US server. The US Government have no right to take him and the UK government have no right to agree to this.

Extradition should only be used for extreme criminals who have actually done damage to the specific country, such as terrorists,murderers,etc. It should not be wasted on small cases.

Also, Google and this site are similar in certain ways. TVShack was used to get to piracy sites. Google can link me to a shit ton of sites, including piracy sites, Roms, etc through key words. I wonder, why are they focusing on such a small fry compared to that? *cough* money *cough*

My main problem is the Extradition.If he did commit a crime he should be tried under UK law, this is just such a bullshit reason to extradite someone.
He should have been extradited, because that is the entire point of the international copyright agreement.

Pirating on a mass scale does harm the US.

This isn't a small case, Tv Shack is a huge website with a lot of illegal traffic. This isn't just some kid in a basement downloading 1 movie.

This is a criminal case.

Google will link you to anything, while Tv Shack will only link you with illegal content. Kind of like how a pawnshop might have a few stolen items, but a drug dealer will only sell you stuff you shouldn't have.
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
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.
this, besides if the servers were not on US soil, this court case wont hold up.
 

kickassfrog

New member
Jan 17, 2011
488
0
0
mad825 said:
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".
Agreed. It also seems like the Americans extradite far less of their criminals to the UK than the UK do to the USA. We should just say "Get stuffed. You're a spent power, we don't like you, stop blaming us for things that were either a) in the past, or b) not our fault (e.g. we somehow got blamed for the BP oil spill. BP is not british any more, and it was an American company that built it anyway.). And besides, we're a triple A nation and you aren't, so start being nice to us, peasants.

Ilikemilkshake said:
He's in the UK. He didn't break any UK laws. He should not be facing trial.
The US would never extradite one of their own if were the other way around, especially not for something so petty... I really wish we'd stop being such bitches when it comes to our "special relationship"
Pretty much what I said above, but I felt I had to quote it anyway.
 

Daverson

New member
Nov 17, 2009
1,164
0
0
Concerning the whole "not on US soil" argument. The servers might not have been based in the US, but ALL .net addresses are registered in the US. This isn't the US policing the internet, it's the US policing their domains. The servers could be in deep space, the argument would still stand. You use a US address, you're under US law.

We do have the .uk and .gb domains for a reasons other than getting a nationalism boner, you know...

And, again, I'd remind you this kid isn't making some kind of point about free speech here. He's a plain criminal, if not in the word of the law, definitely in the spirit. He's made more money in a month with this site than a lot of posters here would make in a year. Money he's clearly used to get lawyers capable of stirring up the biggest fuss about it as they can...
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
FalloutJack said:
Speaking AS a man living in America...

This is a really shitty thing to demand extradition for. Go find those yahoos that cause actual damage or are inherently malicious. What's this? White collar crime and the matter of whether it's actually criminal in question? Pathetic. By god, find something better to do with your time. Entertainment is not worth pulling a guy out of the country for.
Speaking as a US citizen, first of all I have a problem with copyright to begin with (the idea of one person having a temporary (read: like, 15 years) monopoly on their intellectual property, as it was when the US first decided to recognize copyright? Fine. Copyright that extends 75 years past the author's death, assuming the author isn't a corporation[footnote]in which case it can essentially be carried out indefinitely[/footnote]? Screw that.) But second, this is the equivalent of one of those countries in the middle east that executes people for drawing pictures of Mohammed asking for extradition from the US because someone in the US posted a picture of Mohammed on the internet, and the US actually caving. I know I just conflated execution with jail time and fines, but these are jailtimes and fines that are A.) life ruining, and b.) would not be incurred in the country that this "crime" was committed in, because that country doesn't consider it a crime. It really sickens me that the country that I was raised to believe had more freedom than any other place on the planet[footnote]and on paper it does; it's just that we ignore the piece of paper that says we can't do this stuff almost as often as actual first world countries ignore the one that says they /can./[/footnote] has become a place where personal freedom means nothing, unless that "person" is a large corporation[footnote]because don't you know, corporate personhood has been redifined from "a convenient legal fiction that lets corporation be taxed and make contracts as if they were one person" to "an actual person under the law, with all the rights that implies plus the ones they get as a corporation"[/footnote].
 

poleboy

New member
May 19, 2008
1,026
0
0
That judge needs to grow some fucking balls. You DO NOT extradite your citizens for a bloody copyright infringement. What kind of government has so little respect for its citizens' basic rights?
 

Frankster

Space Ace
May 11, 2020
2,507
0
0
Adincha said:
Research done even if I exagerated and simplified what happened for comedic effect.

The US indeed was indeed the strongest economy standing after ww2 but it wasn't quite as accepted as the new world superpower until THAT moment, when brits and french realized that US had quietly threatened them with nukes, and the sheer suggestion of it is what caused their forces to pull back and let the US have their way. This was a strongly symbolic moment, don't underestimate it ;)

As for whether nations had "good", "bad" or w/e reasons, I didn't comment about that.
 

GonvilleBromhead

New member
Dec 19, 2010
284
0
0
Acrisius said:
Not sure why you're quoting me, looks like a mistake when you tried to shorten it down or something. What you're saying doesn't make any sense though. The article clearly states that he's NOT breaking UK law, yet that's the first claim you make. What..?
Yes...I'd rather trust the judgement of a District Judge then a journalist who is merely repeating the claims of the defendent

Agreed. It also seems like the Americans extradite far less of their criminals to the UK than the UK do to the USA. We should just say "Get stuffed. You're a spent power, we don't like you, stop blaming us for things that were either a) in the past, or b) not our fault (e.g. we somehow got blamed for the BP oil spill. BP is not british any more, and it was an American company that built it anyway.). And besides, we're a triple A nation and you aren't, so start being nice to us, peasants.
Actually, we've requested fewer extraditions from the US, but all have been agreed to by the US authorities. We have rejected three (IIRC) of the US requests
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
GonvilleBromhead said:
Acrisius said:
Not sure why you're quoting me, looks like a mistake when you tried to shorten it down or something. What you're saying doesn't make any sense though. The article clearly states that he's NOT breaking UK law, yet that's the first claim you make. What..?
Yes...I'd rather trust the judgement of a District Judge then a journalist who is merely repeating the claims of the defendent

Agreed. It also seems like the Americans extradite far less of their criminals to the UK than the UK do to the USA. We should just say "Get stuffed. You're a spent power, we don't like you, stop blaming us for things that were either a) in the past, or b) not our fault (e.g. we somehow got blamed for the BP oil spill. BP is not british any more, and it was an American company that built it anyway.). And besides, we're a triple A nation and you aren't, so start being nice to us, peasants.
Actually, we've requested fewer extraditions from the US, but all have been agreed to by the US authorities. We have rejected three (IIRC) of the US requests
Maybe it's just my american-ness talking, but I have yet to see a district judge say anything about copyright that implies he's not just doing what the nice people from Hollywood have told him to do. Although granted, their lobbyists are the ones who wrote the laws they're interpreting...
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
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.
100 points to you for noticing. Britain had the priviledge of saying no to extradition if they thought the US was operating unfairly, but it felt it was reasonable. It was decided by an impartial judge, residing over a trial in which the defence team could make any argument they wanted. For that reason, I think it is unreasonable to spuriously claim the judge made a bad decision (who is better qualified to make that decision, anyway?). Despite that, I think one could make a legitimate criticism of the current extradition policy in the UK.

As for the crime itself: not sure what to think. It sure seems to me that, even if he doesn't directly provide the torrents, he is at least an intermediate/accessory to those committing the copywrite infringement, and he profits heavily from doing so. But I'll let the courts decide that, rather than make an uninformed, rash declaration about it.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
The Cool Kid said:
America says "jump". UK says "how high?"

And yet radical law-breaking clerics are not deported. Broken country.
Out of interest, which way would you have it? extradite all those who genuinely fall foul of foreign countries, or extradite no one? Should we set a limit on who can be extradited? (Kiddy fiddlers, definitely; illigitimate business men, no.)

Extradition is always a sore problem. Should Roman Polanski get extradited along with those paedophile priests? Should an illegal arms dealer get to stay home, along with a 23 year old, internet geek, small potato? The answers to those questions may come to you easily, but try putting it into some kind of international, legal context that can deal with any and every case.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
maninahat said:
emeraldrafael said:
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.
100 points to you for noticing. Britain had the priviledge of saying no to extradition if they thought the US was operating unfairly, but it felt it was reasonable. It was decided by an impartial judge, residing over a trial in which the defence team could make any argument they wanted. For that reason, I think it is unreasonable to spuriously claim the judge made a bad decision (who is better qualified to make that decision, anyway?). Despite that, I think one could make a legitimate criticism of the current extradition policy in the UK.

As for the crime itself: not sure what to think. It sure seems to me that, even if he doesn't directly provide the torrents, he is at least an intermediate/accessory to those committing the copywrite infringement, and he profits heavily from doing so. But I'll let the courts decide that, rather than make an uninformed, rash declaration about it.
Thank you for being the second person to say something about torrents. I thought that the first person was just misinformed. Then when you said it, I went and read the article more closely, and realized it was The Escapist that made the mistake. TVshack.net was a collection of links to /streaming videos./ Like, youtube, Veoh, that sort of thing. Sites that, if anyone had bothered, would have had to take down the offending content if given a C&D letter. I'm going to give The Escapist the benefit of the doubt here that what they meant to say is that the excuse applies just as well to this as it does to torrent sites, and not that it actually was a torrent site, because that would be a flat out lie.

I have a source that proves this, but unfortunately it has links to knockoffs that haven't been taken down yet, and I don't want to post it on a site that is so anti-piracy that simply admitting to having done it in the past can get you banned.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
maninahat said:
emeraldrafael said:
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.
100 points to you for noticing. Britain had the priviledge of saying no to extradition if they thought the US was operating unfairly, but it felt it was reasonable. It was decided by an impartial judge, residing over a trial in which the defence team could make any argument they wanted. For that reason, I think it is unreasonable to spuriously claim the judge made a bad decision (who is better qualified to make that decision, anyway?). Despite that, I think one could make a legitimate criticism of the current extradition policy in the UK.

As for the crime itself: not sure what to think. It sure seems to me that, even if he doesn't directly provide the torrents, he is at least an intermediate/accessory to those committing the copywrite infringement, and he profits heavily from doing so. But I'll let the courts decide that, rather than make an uninformed, rash declaration about it.
Eh, fromt he other quotes Ive been getting Im still int he wrong and the US would have did something similar to what they did to Spain, so its nt really a victory i guess.

thanks though.