British Student Loses Extradition Battle Over Copyright Violation

madster11

New member
Aug 17, 2010
476
0
0
So the US are making SOPA and PIPA while trialing how effective their extradition treaty is so they can use NDAA.

Yep, getting pretty fucking scared now.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
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.
Unless, y'know, the US applied economic pressure on a country in order to get the result it wanted. But that's crazy talk, I mean that'd never happen, <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.337240-Obama-blacklists-Spain-and-more-internetdestroying-problems>oh wait...

Sorry, couldn't resist. My point is that since this guy is a UK citizen, and by UK law has not done anything illegal, then there must be some reason for him being handed over. And I doubt the reason is "because they asked nicely".
 

Fasckira

Dice Tart
Oct 22, 2009
1,678
0
0
They could have used a better photo of the poor guy...

The UK should have turned round and told the US of A to bugger off though, it shouldn't be down to Richard to go through the whole process only for this sham of a case to fall flat on its face (after lots of money has been spent of course).
 

Merkavar

New member
Aug 21, 2010
2,429
0
0
all the people claiming he didnt commit a crime in the US, that doesnt really matter. there are plenty of laws that punish people for commiting crimes in other countries like with sex tourism. alot of countries will charge/arrest you if you travel to another country to have sex with children.



so just cause he didnt commit the crime in the US it is obviously punishable in the US.

but to be honest i do think guy should have been tried under UK law etc.
 

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
In several states in america same sex marriage/civil partnership is illegal but is fine in UK, so should we start handing over them aswell?
or maybe America could start giving people back to the middle east who violated laws there?

Merkavar said:
all the people claiming he didnt commit a crime in the US, that doesnt really matter. there are plenty of laws that punish people for commiting crimes in other countries like with sex tourism. alot of countries will charge/arrest you if you travel to another country to have sex with children.



so just cause he didnt commit the crime in the US it is obviously punishable in the US.

but to be honest i do think guy should have been tried under UK law etc.
he didnt even travel to America ever, everything he did was in the UK and it wasnt illegal. but by your logic any country shouls be able take anyone for commiting a crime no matter where they were in the world
 

Duol

New member
Aug 18, 2008
84
0
0
Starke said:
Rednog said:
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.
You obviously have no idea how International Law works.
 

Merkavar

New member
Aug 21, 2010
2,429
0
0
spartandude said:
In several states in america same sex marriage/civil partnership is illegal but is fine in UK, so should we start handing over them aswell?
or maybe America could start giving people back to the middle east who violated laws there?

Merkavar said:
all the people claiming he didnt commit a crime in the US, that doesnt really matter. there are plenty of laws that punish people for commiting crimes in other countries like with sex tourism. alot of countries will charge/arrest you if you travel to another country to have sex with children.



so just cause he didnt commit the crime in the US it is obviously punishable in the US.

but to be honest i do think guy should have been tried under UK law etc.
he didnt even travel to America ever, everything he did was in the UK and it wasnt illegal. but by your logic any country shouls be able take anyone for commiting a crime no matter where they were in the world
yeah i thought about it more and my example doesnt fit. it would be more for a US citizen going to the UK and commiting piracy crimes. then being charged in the US
 

GonvilleBromhead

New member
Dec 19, 2010
284
0
0
One thing that no-one has pointed out is that the extradition agreement under which the chap is being deported is bilateral - the British government can request the extradition of US citizens with the same criteria in the reverse; and the UK government has indeed had the US government extradite suspects to the UK (in fact, the US government has not refused extradition to the UK for anyone. The UK has.)
Interestingly enough, prior to the 2003 treaty, the extradition laws were exceptionally unfair, as the UK only needed reasonable suspicion to have someone extradited from the US, whereas the US needed to demonstrate prima facie evidence to do the same. The new act requires the US to show reasonable suspicion, and the UK probable cause (these are the same thing, the difference merely being the names given to the concept either side of the Atlantic) for an extradition to proceed.

In addition, to be extradited the act the person is being extradited for has to be considered a crime in both countries, as is the case here.
 

DaHero

New member
Jan 10, 2011
789
0
0
seraphy said:
US seems such a third world country here again. The criminal system in there must be a joke.

To be fair though UK is much bigger joke here if they actually extradite him. How can they even considerer with a straight face to extradite one of their own citizens who has not broken any laws in uk or done anything illegal in there either. Perhaps UK should grow a bit of a backbone.
It is, no really.

In the U.S. a man can rob a house, get injured by the owner, and sue the owner of the house for damages, and get away with it. Even if he doesn't, his case of assault would be seen as a higher case than an attempted robbery, thus delaying his case for well on 10 years, while he COULD be figuring out a way to leave the country or go into hiding.
 

Duol

New member
Aug 18, 2008
84
0
0
Starke said:
Duol said:
You obviously have no idea how International Law works.
A pretty good, and coherent grasp of how it works? Yeah, yeah I do.
Just because there is an international treaty or agreement does not extend jurisdiction for countries that are a party to it. Just because both the countries involved have agreed to a IP treaty doesn't mean that the one country has jurisdiction to prosecute all infractions of the agreement everywhere in the world. Not to mention the fact that I doubt the UK is a party to a treaty that makes what he has done illegal, otherwise there would be English law against it, and UK authorities would be prosecuting him.

The UK has an extradition treaty with the US, that's what's being used.
 

The_Emperor

New member
Mar 18, 2010
347
0
0
this makes me sick, I dont have much else to say about it, theres nothing I can do about it either and that makes me want to cry a little.

when the rebellion comes I hope I'm not too old or dead to enjoy it.
 

molester jester

New member
Sep 4, 2008
593
0
0
He gets sent to America, but we refuse to extradite the duchess of york, even though she actually committed crimes in the country that want to prosecute her, that seems a tad unfair, but fuck it after all he nothing but dirty peasant scum.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
Grouchy Imp said:
Yeah, not to offend anybody, but right now, britains abit higher on the totem pole than Spain. Spain is looking to go the way of greece and has never really been know for its great stability and ability to roll with the big boys. I would think Britain could put a foot down, but if they choose not to, then thats their problem and says more about that country than the one trying to "police the world".

which if you read the thread you'd see I said the same thing.

Trillovinum said:
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.
 

Foxpack1

New member
Dec 23, 2010
104
0
0
And yet when it comes to extraditing radical clerics, we are forced not to by the EU.

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16150470
 

yourbeliefs

Bored at Work
Jan 30, 2009
781
0
0
This reeks of throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. I'm sure that in due time the charges will be thrown out and he'll be sent on his way. Granted it still sucks he has to go through this and he probably won't get even an apology from our government, but I don't see this being some sort of "The beginning of the end" trial.

I vaguely remember hearing of this site, ironically on The Escapist when someone was looking for Dr. Who episodes or something and someone recommended the site. Unsurprisingly, that person who suggested the site was punished and the thread was closed.

Remember folks, on this site, recommending specific torrent sites is a BIG no no!