British Student Strikes Deal With US Prosecution

[Kopikatsu]

Still saying it linked to torrent sites, eh Escapist? It wasn't torrents at all, it was streaming sites. Like Youtube, but usually not Youtube itself. Stay classy, Escapist.

Naming Youtube and nothing else is kind of disingenuous. It was linking to sites like Solar Movies, which host copywrited material illegally. (Hey, if contributors can link directly to porn sites, I can mention the name of a streaming site in passing)

 

[Sylveria]

Man if I were him I wouldn't set foot on US soil. This reeks of a trap to me.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Because the internet is international and he broke US law for which the US can claim that Americans were using his site (And they probably were, too). I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

Extremely iffy justification, though. If the internet is international then nobody can claim any part of it, surely? It'd be like committing a crime in international waters - anyone who actually wanted you for something could claim you. Universal jurisdiction etc.

I'm not an expert, and I don't know if this is right, but if his website was hosted using a US server, wouldn't that mean that his site was subject to their law? (Again, not an expert or authority of any kind, just a guy with a suggestion)

His site was hosted on a UK server, not a US one. He committed no crime within US jurisdiction, which is the crux of the case. He didn't even host the pirated content himself, merely links to where it could be found. Dodgy, true, but dodgy enough to support being extradited to a country where you've committed no crime? I think not.

 

[Deshin]

Because the internet is international and he broke US law for which the US can claim that Americans were using his site (And they probably were, too). I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

I'm gonna stop ya right there: no.

By that reasoning every time you've ever viewed anything pornographic you are hearby liable to be extradited to Libya to be tried there and punished. Furthermore if you've ever downloaded any DLC for your Xbox/PS3 via the internet you're also going to be extradited to China as those services are not allowed and you've committed a criminal act. Oh and if you've ever seen any funny pictures mocking the late Kim Jong-il you can be extradited to North Korea and be tried there and locked up for a decade.

Internet laws are subject to residence of the owner of the site and country the server is located. If someone's a British citizen and hosting a website with a server on British soil then America has no fucking jurisdiction whatsoever over that person or his website. The maximum they can do is inform the British authorities on the matter and they can procede accordingly depending on if he's actually broken any British laws and they can get American ISPs to block the website from their DNS databases. Much like how China gets its panties in a bunch over most of the internet instead they filter it from their citizens and not embark on a digital crusade to lock up everyone who is doing something illegal in their eyes.

Just because it's the good ol' U.S. of A doesn't give them any authority whatsoever to police the internet and be judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[SonicWaffle]

So again: I just don't get it where the USA get the balls to ask that of the UK and why the UK even considered it.

Because Britain is, in this scenario, the little guy in 80's cartoons who hangs around as the big bully's sidekick. Sure he may get knocked around and abused, but less so than anyone else, so he puts up with it because he knows if he didn't the bully could squash him like a bug. We do what we're told because really, what else are we going to do? Put up a fight?

 

[Kopikatsu]

Because the internet is international and he broke US law for which the US can claim that Americans were using his site (And they probably were, too). I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

I'm gonna stop ya right there: no.

By that reasoning every time you've ever viewed anything pornographic you are hearby liable to be extradited to Libya to be tried there and punished. Furthermore if you've ever downloaded any DLC for your Xbox/PS3 via the internet you're also going to be extradited to China as those services are not allowed and you've committed a criminal act. Oh and if you've ever seen any funny pictures mocking the late Kim Jong-il you can be extradited to North Korea and be tried there and locked up for a decade.

Internet laws are subject to residence of the owner of the site and country the server is located. If someone's a British citizen and hosting a website with a server on British soil then America has no fucking jurisdiction whatsoever over that person or his website. The maximum they can do is inform the British authorities on the matter and they can procede accordingly depending on if he's actually broken any British laws and they can get American ISPs to block the website from their DNS databases. Much like how China gets its panties in a bunch over most of the internet instead they filter it from their citizens and not embark on a digital crusade to lock up everyone who is doing something illegal in their eyes.

Just because it's the good ol' U.S. of A doesn't give them any authority whatsoever to police the internet and be judge, jury, and executioner.

You seem to have missed the last part.

I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/120763-Google-Rallies-Opposition-to-U-N-Internet-Treaty

Besides, it wasn't a British server on British soil. It was hosted on a US server.

 

[UniversalRonin]

Because the internet is international and he broke US law for which the US can claim that Americans were using his site (And they probably were, too). I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

Extremely iffy justification, though. If the internet is international then nobody can claim any part of it, surely? It'd be like committing a crime in international waters - anyone who actually wanted you for something could claim you. Universal jurisdiction etc.

I'm not an expert, and I don't know if this is right, but if his website was hosted using a US server, wouldn't that mean that his site was subject to their law? (Again, not an expert or authority of any kind, just a guy with a suggestion)

His site was hosted on a UK server, not a US one. He committed no crime within US jurisdiction, which is the crux of the case. He didn't even host the pirated content himself, merely links to where it could be found. Dodgy, true, but dodgy enough to support being extradited to a country where you've committed no crime? I think not.

Cool. To be honest, I don't really know anything about this case or Copyright law. (except that facebook statuses don't really affect it.) I hope that Gary McKinnon will prove a turning point in how the extradition treaty will work with our transatlantic cousins.

 

[Deshin]

I'm not an expert, and I don't know if this is right, but if his website was hosted using a US server, wouldn't that mean that his site was subject to their law? (Again, not an expert or authority of any kind, just a guy with a suggestion)

Yes and no. If he was a British citizen residing in Britain using a provider on US soil then the max they can do is shut down the server and add him to a blacklist where he's not allowed to register another domain. (basically putting him on a Wanted list) He would be breaking the US law but until he sets foot on US soil they cannot prosecute him.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Just because it's the good ol' U.S. of A doesn't give them any authority whatsoever to police the internet and be judge, jury, and executioner.

While this is true, I don't fancy being the one who has to explain it to the American authorities. This is a nation that regularly refers to itself as "the greatest nation on earth"; in their eyes, what right does anyone else have to an opinion?

The saddest thing is that there are plenty - not all, not most, but plenty - of American citizens would likely agree. If you'd been raised to believe you belong to the greatest, most powerful, inherently superior country then why wouldn't you think you have the authority to do what the fuck you like?

 

[SonicWaffle]

Besides, it wasn't a British server on British soil. It was hosted on a US server.

No, it was not.

 

[Deshin]

Besides, it wasn't a British server on British soil. It was hosted on a US server.

His site was hosted on a UK server, not a US one.

Well one of you is wrong but EITHER WAY extradition is not on the cards.

You seem to have missed the last part.

I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

No I read the last part very well, the correct answer was number 3: They have no legislation or jurisdiction to do so. Even if they did care and they did have the pull to go through with it they can do diddly squat apart from ask nicely to that country's officials and hope they sit down and roll over in the hopes of a tummy rub. Extradition is reserved for SERIOUS cases and some pleb with a site hosting links to streams which isn't even a crime on the home turf does not constitute extradition levels of seriousness.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Because the internet is international and he broke US law for which the US can claim that Americans were using his site (And they probably were, too). I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

Extremely iffy justification, though. If the internet is international then nobody can claim any part of it, surely? It'd be like committing a crime in international waters - anyone who actually wanted you for something could claim you. Universal jurisdiction etc.

I'm not an expert, and I don't know if this is right, but if his website was hosted using a US server, wouldn't that mean that his site was subject to their law? (Again, not an expert or authority of any kind, just a guy with a suggestion)

His site was hosted on a UK server, not a US one. He committed no crime within US jurisdiction, which is the crux of the case. He didn't even host the pirated content himself, merely links to where it could be found. Dodgy, true, but dodgy enough to support being extradited to a country where you've committed no crime? I think not.

Cool. To be honest, I don't really know anything about this case or Copyright law. (except that facebook statuses don't really affect it.) I hope that Gary McKinnon will prove a turning point in how the extradition treaty will work with our transatlantic cousins.

I doubt it. It's a drop in the bucket when it comes to public interest; these cases have popped up, but soon they'll disappear again. The tabloids have people whipped into an anti-Europe frenzy, which certainly seems to be being treated as the biggest parliamentary issue of the day, so our relations with the Americans take a back seat. Without people pushing for things to change, they won't, and the EU is the problem du jour.

We'll all forget about this soon enough, and bugger all will change :-(

 

[SonicWaffle]

Besides, it wasn't a British server on British soil. It was hosted on a US server.

His site was hosted on a UK server, not a US one.

Well one of you is wrong but EITHER WAY extradition is not on the cards.

The hosting of the website is central to his defence. His lawyers claim it was "not in any way" hosted on a US server, presumably a relatively easily falsifiable claim, so there wouldn't be much point in them lying about it.

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

The Americans have never found mere laws to be a hindrance to getting what they want. Our politicians may be gutless, but Britain is already struggling: earning the ire of the US (though the US is itself a bully) would be bad for a lot more Brits than an innocent student. Its a terrible thing they would extradite him, but thats the problem with the 'special relationship': it's pretty much one-way.

Besides, it wasn't a British server on British soil. It was hosted on a US server.

What? No it wasn't.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Still saying it linked to torrent sites, eh Escapist? It wasn't torrents at all, it was streaming sites. Like Youtube, but usually not Youtube itself. Stay classy, Escapist.

Naming Youtube and nothing else is kind of disingenuous. It was linking to sites like Solar Movies, which host copywrited material illegally. (Hey, if contributors can link directly to porn sites, I can mention the name of a streaming site in passing)

The point is that youtube does exactly what those sites do. The onus is legally not on the owner of the site to police user uploaded content, it's on the copyright owners to send takedown notices. Until they send that takedown notice -- which pretty much all streaming sites, even the shady ones, will listen to -- the streaming site has no obligation whatsoever to take things down. Youtube works the same way, which is why you can find pretty much any anime ever made on it, whether its been officially licensed outside of Japan or not.

 

[JWAN]

Well, I think the US should also extradite people from the US who steal copyright info from other countries. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

When my dad was in the service military law dictated if a service member committed a crime overseas they were first punished by local law (as long as the punishment was not life in prison or death) and then they were charged in a military tribunal (that DID have the option of life in prison with no parole (and they meant no parole) or death as max sentences).

 

[Frostbyte666]

That is something I didn't understand in the first place. In my country it is against the constitution to extradite a citizen to another country. If you are a citizen in my country and you broke the law and you are IN my country then you will stand trial in my country. If the law you broke doesn't exist in my country then nothing happens. I always assumed that this was just the same in the USA and Great Britain because our constitution pretty much had to pass their watching eye. So I really don't understand at all how the UK could ever consider extraditing him and I even don't understand it on several levels.

I'll save you all the legal babble and put it simply: USA says "jump" and Britain not only asks "how high?" but also "when?", "for how long?", and "off of what?" No one in any political seat with a voice has the balls to say "no" to the hulking great neighbour across the pond because keeping up their special relationship is more important than a handful of citizens.

When you wrote that I immediately thought of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsSduvXtt5Q

Don't know how to embed youtube yet, but it's showing the 2DTV sketch "Tony says"

OT: Yeah I wouldn't trust America to honour its agreement once I set foot on their soil I'd say bring it over here (UK).

 

[DJjaffacake]

O'Dwyer does still have to go to the US, but only to sign the documentation which, among other stipulations, makes him promise not to infringe copyright again.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who saw this and immediately thought, "Bull. Fucking. Shit."

If it was me I would be questioning why exactly I am required to go to the US to sign a piece of paper.

 

[ResonanceSD]

O'Dwyer does still have to go to the US, but only to sign the documentation which, among other stipulations, makes him promise not to infringe copyright again.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who saw this and immediately thought, "Bull. Fucking. Shit."

If it was me I would be questioning why exactly I am required to go to the US to sign a piece of paper.

They've never heard of the Fax Machine in the US. It's the technological dark ages there.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

This whole thing was a fucking mess. I am appalled that the US has had any say in this.