British Student Strikes Deal With US Prosecution

[Gilhelmi]

I love how 99% of y'all have NOOOOOOO idea about how the law works.

I admit to not knowing much about the law but I know commonsense. Stealing is wrong, posting links to places that are giving away stolen data is wrong. Do not tell me differently, because I know that in the next ten years legitimate TV networks will go to an "all online" approach. Why does that matter? BECAUSE NO ONE WILL BUY IT LEGALLY IF THE DAME PIRATES ARE GIVING IT AWAY. That means no more new TV programs or worse (only lame crap that is a remake of a remake).

I blame everyone who steals by downloading (or illegally streaming) data. Even if today the law is shaky, I am keeping on my Congressman to pass legislation protecting digital media rights. I have a dream too create an Internet TV station someday, I want to be able to make enough money to live on and then expand. I dream of buying rights to the good TV shows, editing them for family audiences, then advertising on family oriented websites.

 

[Doug]

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 agree that US citizens (amongst everyone else) where likely using his website, but isn't that like a US citizen buying crack in the UK and then the UK drug dealer being sent to the US for daring to enable its citizens to buy drugs?

Given the internet is international, it implies to me that the US government doesn't have any jurisdiction over it (naturally, they disagree).

 

[Faulty Turmoil]

I love how 99% of y'all have NOOOOOOO idea about how the law works.

I admit to not knowing much about the law but I know commonsense. Stealing is wrong, posting links to places that are giving away stolen data is wrong. Do not tell me differently, because I know that in the next ten years legitimate TV networks will go to an "all online" approach. Why does that matter? BECAUSE NO ONE WILL BUY IT LEGALLY IF THE DAME PIRATES ARE GIVING IT AWAY. That means no more new TV programs or worse (only lame crap that is a remake of a remake).

Pirates are already giving it away. People are still buying the stuff though. That argument has already been proven wrong.

You can pirate Blops2, but look at that, it's still sold a fucktonne of games and broken records.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I love how 99% of y'all have NOOOOOOO idea about how the law works.

And I love how you claim others don't understand the law, and yet use the word "stealing" in a situation where it is entirely inapplicable.

No, I don't give a single fuck about your morals, it's the law that matters here, and downloading stuff off of the internet isn't stealing, it's infringement of copyright.

It also makes me giggle that you're apparently all for content creator's rights, but you'd still be willing to do something as abominable as butcher a perfectly good TV show to make it "family friendly".

I know better then to feed the trolls (your avatar gives it away), but here I go again.

Yes, stealing is the applicable word for layman (common) language. You take something that you do not have the right to take, that is stealing. I do not now, nor will I ever see that differently. Do not tell me they "make enough" because they don't, studios have to pay bills, pay employees, pay distributors, ect. Then they money they do make is not all going to the CEOs and stockholder (usually, you only hear about the corrupt ones. BUT they still deserve their cut.). The money is going to make the next project.

As for the law, I am actively trying to change it to make it harder on digital theft. That is MY right as an American. You disagree with me, YOUR right as an American is to actively try and change the law to your liking. Whoever gets the most votes, gets their way (in a normal world, there are compromises).

As for the last point. I will be BUYING (crazy concept on the Internet) the rights to broadcast the shows. I will have the creators PERMISSION (egad, getting permission? Whats next? obeying the traffic laws? /sarcasm) Do not watch my network, please. I do not want your money. My target audience is people who want family friendly programing. I plan to advertise during the "700 Club" (Pat Robertson) and on the American Family Association networks. Again, watch TV on another internet TV website.

EDIT: I just noticed that you are not an American citizen. My apology for assuming. But that brings up the point that the internet is a strange thing that the traditional "Laws" have never seen. You could break a law in America, on American servers (in this case), and the victims are American citizens, but yet because no laws were broken "in" England (because all the crime happened in the US)?

Lets say that there is a nation, small, poor, little government (maybe a weak dictatorship), with no extradition treaties because no one noticed them till now. That nation passes a law saying that it is legal to commit any crimes on the Internet as long as you pay taxes on that money. How pissed would the world be? That country is now raking in millions of stolen money, and some is stolen from you (I assume you pay or will pay taxes). Now they can just buy off Black Market traders to get around the trade restriction (UN sanctions, after the thieves stole from them too) and 'magic jumping beans' the worlds economy gets broken again.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I love how 99% of y'all have NOOOOOOO idea about how the law works.

I admit to not knowing much about the law but I know commonsense. Stealing is wrong, posting links to places that are giving away stolen data is wrong. Do not tell me differently, because I know that in the next ten years legitimate TV networks will go to an "all online" approach. Why does that matter? BECAUSE NO ONE WILL BUY IT LEGALLY IF THE DAME PIRATES ARE GIVING IT AWAY. That means no more new TV programs or worse (only lame crap that is a remake of a remake).

Pirates are already giving it away. People are still buying the stuff though. That argument has already been proven wrong.

You can pirate Blops2, but look at that, it's still sold a *expletive deleted* of games and broken records.

No it has not. The majority of people are law-abiding citizens, so the majority will obey the law, IF they understand it. Most people do not yet know that most of these kind of streaming TV site are illegally run. And unless you know how to tell you do not know if the site is being run legally.

I will admit to exaggerating a bit with the "NO ONE", but even a 20% loss is still meaning that the next project is going to have that much less money to create things with.

 

[Gilhelmi]

EPIC SNIP

I swear, I read your post fully. I just did not care anymore.

The only thing I will speak on is the "Iran" point you tried to make. This guy is not being accused of "liable" or insulting the US, He is accused of copyright infringement (or stealing, as I call it).

I did reread the original article, hmm I swore it was American servers. Oh well. The Internet does need to be 'owned' by some nation, the criminal element is getting out of hand (my opinion again).

So why not America? We invented the Internet. There is no really good organization that is not run (or strongly influenced by) one nation. Nations can control and own land. Why not declare officially that the US owns the legal rights to the Internet?

FYI: I am starting a new thread in Religion and Politics for this last part. See ya there.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

EPIC SNIP

I swear, I read your post fully. I just did not care anymore.

Or is it because he fucking destroyed your argument?

 

[The White Hunter]

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.

I still don't see why extradition was even possible in the first place. If he was breaking laws then isn't it his own country's responsibility to prosecute and charge? I'm reminded of one case where the U.S. tried to sue someone in the U.K. for illegally sharing Beatles music but he was well within legality as under U.K. law the number of years for art to become free cultural heritage property had been reached and so his sharing was perfectly legal.

I really do get the feeling the U.S. tries to overstep its boundaries when it comes to everything copyright infringement. All this is going to do is make more people actively try to block the U.S. from accessing the site like Kim Dotcom has promised with his new Mega site; but if this is the case isn't this just an inverse version of Chin's Great Firewall? Only instead of putting up blockades because they don't want their own citizens to access certain files everyone else is blocking them because they're afraid they're going to come stomping in their own backyard and sue the pants off of them?

Perplexes me too, if I recall correctly this guy actually didn't do damn thing wrong under UK law. Hence the outrage over the whole thing. We have pretty grey copyright laws over here, at least compared to the US...

Edit: The internet was first developed by international physicists and technicians working at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, as a method for the quick sharing of data and important files over long distances, because the facility (I have been and I can vouch for this) is absolutely enormous and takes hours to ride a bike around, let alone walk to some dude on the other side to give him your data. Hence they made a contained internet for the express purpose of sharing data.

Twas not invented by "America", though some Americans were involved in the process, as were people of many nationalities. It should stand as a glorious symbol of what we can do when we stop being twats and co-operate for once.

Eventually this became what Freakazoid predicted it would and yeah, people ruin everything!

 

[The White Hunter]

It also makes me giggle that you're apparently all for content creator's rights, but you'd still be willing to do something as abominable as butcher a perfectly good TV show to make it "family friendly".

They butcher stuff to make it friendly for Americans too. Because blood and smoking are morally wrong but you can make all the dick jokes you want on TV.

Seriously, One Piece censorship, that shit was too far.

 

[fix-the-spade]

If that truly is so, it would seem the US authorities are cooling on the idea; a quick trip to New York and a fine isn't that frightening.

Assuming they stick to the deal, once he's in NY there is nothing to stop them simply arresting him and neatly side stepping any kind of extradition process.

What should be frightening is that the US judiciary is applying it's laws internationally. That America is apparently able to apply it's criminal law to people who are not American, have never entered America, don't do business in America and have commited no crime at all in their home country should be utterly terrifying to everyone.

Copyright infringement is normally a civil matter in the UK, the various parties after this kid should have sued him, he wasn't making counterfeit goods so as far as a criminal case goes he has nothing to answer for. He should never have even been arrested, but there you go, 'Murica wants, 'Murica gets.