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...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.
At least they would like to beTubez said:USA showing proudly that they are the Worlds police.
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 worldMerkavar 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.
You obviously have no idea how International Law works.Starke said: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.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.
It's still pretty damn weird though, I mean, this is an extradition over what is, in all likelihood a misdemeanor.
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 USspartandude 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?
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 worldMerkavar 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.
It is, no really.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.
A pretty good, and coherent grasp of how it works? Yeah, yeah I do.Duol said:You obviously have no idea how International Law works.
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.Starke said:A pretty good, and coherent grasp of how it works? Yeah, yeah I do.Duol said:You obviously have no idea how International Law works.
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".Grouchy Imp said:snip
To say Britain is a "small country" pretty much invalidates yours as well.Trillovinum said:snip