UK 'Piracy' student to be extradited to US

[Doc Theta Sigma]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Another example of America believing they can police the world. And frankly as a UK citizen I'm sickened by the "special" relationship our government has with the US. Would the US allow one of their citizens to be extradited here for such a charge? I doubt it. In my opinion his trial should take place here within our courts. As his lawyer said, he's merely acting as a guinea pig for this practice to become common place.

What do you all think?

 

[FalloutJack]

I'd be annoyed to in that particular case. In fact, if the situation were reversed, I'd be highly irritated by the thought...pretty much on the grounds that the UK should take heed in Neil Gaiman's rather innovative and tolerant views on piracy. (i.e. He sees piracy as similar to going to the library.)

 

[CODE-D]

This whole enforcing punishment on piracy is getting ridiculous.
Surely there is a better way, maybe just take back what was downloaded or a small fine or something.

But I guess companies wanna send a message.

 

[Weentastic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Another example of America believing they can police the world.

I don't think this is evidence that the U.S. believes it can police the world, especially since our entire country had very little to do with this. I have a feeling this has more to do with the companies and lobbyists residing in our country that believe the laws in the U.S. that they are accustomed to should be applied universally. What the kid did was wrong, but I don't think it's ethical for him to be extradited to the U.S. for such a menial crime. That would imply that one should know all the copyright laws of every nation before linking anywhere, lest they be sent to that country for violating one of its laws outside of its borders.

 

[Doc Theta Sigma]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Another example of America believing they can police the world.

I don't think this is evidence that the U.S. believes it can police the world, especially since our entire country had very little to do with this. I have a feeling this has more to do with the companies and lobbyists residing in our country that believe the laws in the U.S. that they are accustomed to should be applied universally. What the kid did was wrong, but I don't think it's ethical for him to be extradited to the U.S. for such a menial crime. That would imply that one should know all the copyright laws of every nation before linking anywhere, lest they be sent to that country for violating one of its laws outside of its borders.

The treaty that we have with the US is skewed in the favour of the US however. An extredition request from our government goes through more channels and many more decisions than one from the US does here. He's essentially being made an example of. And what I can gather from the article, it's still under debate whether he was hosting copyrighted material or simply linking to it.

 

[FamoFunk]

It's bloody pathetic. He's British and is in Britain, therefore should be tried on British soil as a result.

 

[Saika Renegade]

I foresee a bad trend. A very bad trend.

The US is unwittingly setting precedent for its own citizens to be extradited to countries with much stricter rules and punishments even than itself, and believe you me, they will start asking. Turkey, for instance, has very strong national defamation laws, and I am fairly certain that numerous Arab countries have made the destruction of a Koran an offense punishable by execution. US citizens have certainly already violated both of those laws in some form or fashion as it stands, but these are not legal transgressions in the US.

Of course, when countries find out the US is almost certainly going to not play by those same rules it demands of others, you can watch extradition treaties dry up like slugs in salt--a real mother of a first step towards outright legal isolation of the United States (IE, no recognition of its laws overseas, including the protections that they offer to its citizens).

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Richard O'Dwyer, 23, set up the TVShack website which US authorities say hosts links to pirated copyrighted films and television programmes.

How is this even illegal. It would be like suing a phone company for having a phone directory with criminals numbers listed.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

You that puddle...yeah, the Atlantic, that's just one of many borders that states fuck you america, your law doesn't reach this far.

Also, whatever your thoughts on piracy, as far as I know, downloading and hosting a torrent file is entirely legal, you can't nail someone for that, only for transferring copyrighted material.

To me, considering the UK is one of the few friends the US has left, we really ought to demand a bit of being their *****. (and I LIKE America, but fuck this, when it flatly doesn't work in the other direction.)

Yet one more reason we should be against SOPA, if think using anti terrorism laws is justified against another country because of some copyright infringement, then I still fear for Gary McKinnon, whose case is as yet still not sorted out and he's still in danger of being sent to a US prison for life for hacking US military computers, despite him getting in using default passwords and claiming it's all been inflated because they're embarrassed about how terrible their security was.

From Wikipedia:

Gary McKinnon (born 10 February 1966) is a Scottish[1] systems administrator and hacker who has been accused of what one U.S. prosecutor claims is the "biggest military computer hack of all time,"[2] although McKinnon himself states that he was merely looking for evidence of free energy suppression and a cover-up of UFO activity and other technologies potentially useful to the public. After a series of legal proceedings in England, McKinnon is currently fighting extradition to the United States.

"McKinnon remained at liberty without restriction for three years until June 2005 (until after the UK enacted the Extradition Act 2003, which implemented the 2003 extradition treaty with the US wherein the US did not need to provide contestable evidence)"

There's a fuck of a difference between being an autistic hacker who's looking for evidence of little green men and actually being in the fucking Taliban! I fully believe the US also inflated the figures to get to the point where they can demand extradition too, purely because they're embarrassed that a single geek showed up their ideas of being so supremely powerful and inpenetrable. They should offer him a job, not measure him up for one of those fancy orange jumpsuits.

WTF? The US can pretty much just pick British citizens and go, "we've got zero evidence but he looks shifty, can you pack him on the next flight so we can waterboard him until he signs a confession?"

 

[Doc Theta Sigma]

Essentially yes they can. Whereas if we want to extradite a US citizen it requires a US judge and the secretary of state to view all the evidence against that person beforehand.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I foresee a bad trend. A very bad trend.

The US is unwittingly setting precedent for its own citizens to be extradited to countries with much stricter rules and punishments even than itself, and believe you me, they will start asking. Turkey, for instance, has very strong national defamation laws, and I am fairly certain that numerous Arab countries have made the destruction of a Koran an offense punishable by execution. US citizens have certainly already violated both of those laws in some form or fashion as it stands, but these are not legal transgressions in the US.

Of course, when countries find out the US is almost certainly going to not play by those same rules it demands of others, you can watch extradition treaties dry up like slugs in salt--a real mother of a first step towards outright legal isolation of the United States (IE, no recognition of its laws overseas, including the protections that they offer to its citizens).

I doubt that. The US can gets away with stuff like that because they happen to be the biggest economy and strongest military. It's easier to let them have one of your citizens than them finding a reason to boycott trade with you and maybe bullying other nations to do likewise.

 

[Sonicron]

... Wow, that's downright scary. The US content industry must have one gigantic bug up its arse to push for this kind of punishment (because let's face it, this has nothing to do with the US government per se); I seriously hope the judgement gets overturned on the appeal, otherwise this kind of precedent could spell disaster for many more people in the future.

 

[Saika Renegade]

I doubt that. The US can gets away with stuff like that because they happen to be the biggest economy and strongest military. It's easier to let them have one of your citizens than them finding a reason to boycott trade with you and maybe bullying other nations to do likewise.

Even as big as it is, the more entities, countries, and blocs that pull away means that the US will cause/encounter more trouble as a result. The old saying of a lion pulled down by jackals is apt here--yes, the jackals in this analogy are not likely to cooperate, but the possibility of such a thing is something that no one can ignore, let alone the United States. After all, they recently expelled the Venezuelan diplomat for apparently taking part in collaborative talks with Iranian and Cuban diplomats where the possibility of cyber-attacks was put forward. (re: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16461697 ) This highlights my main concern; the US is indeed a world power, but the more people it upsets, the more of them start to think that joining hands to cause harm is worth whatever risks that incurs.

 

[RikuoAmero]

I like how they put "piracy" in quotations as if to imply he didn't do anything to do with piracy. He didn't put up the links himself, and some people will say that he's not guilty for that reason, but those people are also stupid.

He has provided a venue for piracy, and he doesn't have a very strong alibi. The whole premises of these sorts of websites is to view pirated material. It's not like some random uncontrolled thing you see with 4chan or even YouTube, this is a piracy hub, and he's running the show.

It's also incredibly flawed reasoning that your country should protect you from being prosecuted for crimes committed in other countries. Do people honestly think it's acceptable to blatantly break the law and cower behind a form of diplomatic immunity when the law catches up to you? Extradition cases are usually taken very seriously anyway, both parties must work together and determine whether or not there is even a real case before handing over one of their citizens.

Differences in standards of punishment also plays a huge factor, The States are usually known for having fairly harsh punishments compared to other countries, and it gets in the way of most extradition requests. I know here in Canada, we will refuse extradition of anybody to a country where it is believed they run the risk of a death penalty.

What you may not know about this kid is that what he did is completely and 100% LEGAL in the UK. That's what started this shit-fest on the interwebz. He did something completely legal in the UK and yet...he's being extradited to the US for breaking their laws...
So explain to me again please. How is it that a British citizen, on British soil, can do an activity that his government has declared legal, and yet he can still be extradited to another country for breaking their laws?
Last I checked, the extradition treaty between the UK and US states that for someone to be extradited, they must have done something that is illegal in BOTH countries. Not just the one.

 

[ChadSexington]

I REALLY LIKED THAT SITE AND I WAS VERY ANNOYED WHEN IT WAS SHUT DOWN.

More to the point though, he technically hasn't broken the law so the U.S has no right arresting him. Especially considering he isn't an American citizen.

 

[Knusper]

I don't understand why he has to be prosecuted in America when we have laws about it here in Britain (I think). If he had done an act of terrorism or murdered someone in the US fair enough, but I feel this has more to do with American media and software giants trying to make an example of someone.

 

[Sexy Devil]

It's also incredibly flawed reasoning that your country should protect you from being prosecuted for crimes committed in other countries. Do people honestly think it's acceptable to blatantly break the law and cower behind a form of diplomatic immunity when the law catches up to you? Extradition cases are usually taken very seriously anyway, both parties must work together and determine whether or not there is even a real case before handing over one of their citizens.

But it's not a crime in the country where the act was committed so he shouldn't be put on trial for it. Nobody's denying that piracy is wrong but it's not interpreted as piracy where he's from. American law is not international law and they shouldn't have the ability to force it on other nations.

Being extradited for this is like an American woman being extradited to some middle eastern country because she's not wearing a burqa in America. Does that sound unbelievably stupid? It absolutely should, and that's basically what's happening here.