UK 'Piracy' student to be extradited to US

[Tiger Sora]

He's a British citizen, under British jurisdiction. What he did from what I understand, is not illegal in the UK, but is in the US. It's a huge case, a case filled with BS and legal jargen. And this is not a major crime, they've no right to do this. They're trying to set up that it's ok to do this. It's not like someone whos committed war crimes, I don't see Bust Jr getting strung up for his illegal invasion of Iraq. But some dude breaks a small law of another country while being in his own and he's tossed to the lions. Way to protect your own citizens UK government.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Oh, someone's upset that England isn't the world police anymore and hasn't been for a few decades... Ah but I kid, I kid.

Honestly I want to know more about why this happened before I make a judgment the story that you linked to noted the court rules but not the specifics of the case or why this case was so special. In an increasingly globalized world though at some point this kind of thing is going to be become real common as national barriers blur. First step or secret cloak and dagger deal, you decide!

 

[Khanht Cope]

It's not acceptable for the US to hold citizens of other nations to unaccountable US laws and US values on justice from overseas. Extradition is for people who commited crimes on sovereign soils to be held to the laws of the land on which they commited the crime. It is appropriate for bilateral co-operation on serious crimes such as homicide, significant fraud and treason. It was not conceived with encroachment of sovereignty in mind.

How would anyone feel about the Saudi's being able to assume the right to claim their nation's women to be punished, detained, tortured or executed over moral decadence?

It was in the UK where it is not a crime, so extradition is not appropriate. This would then need to get by on the US considering the entire internet subservient to US jurisdiction. That's a real controversy. With Gary McKinnon, it can be argued that he attacked and compromised US national security; but this case has **** all to do with the US.

The UK has a lop-sided extradition agreement with the US whereby they can claim UK citizens to be tried in their land by their justice system without a burden of proof. This agreement is malignant for people of the UK if the US government should enact an irresponsible law like SOPA.

Agreements like this indirectly support the prospect of SOPA. Widespread agreements like this make it in US interest to pass SOPA if this shit is allowed to fly.

Any business or industry in the US and friendly with the US government gets global protection from slander, competition and the collapse of their business model from a changing economy. American could rip up foreign businesses while protecting its own. Businesses at risk from SOPA can be shaken down for protection money by the Federal economic mafia. It's then in the interest of industry everywhere to flock to America to be coddled by Congress.

Conversely, if many countries stand up for their sovereignty on this issue; Congress couldn't get away with passing SOPA, because vulnerable internet industries would flee to more liberal countries and leave America with endangered ones.

The global patent wars should show that this totalitarian scale intellectual property hoopla is beginning to get out of hand. They'll readily use the justice system for market domination.

 

[godofallu]

All in all pirating is morally wrong and people that pirate should expect punishment. Foreigners who harm the US shouldn't feel safe just because they aren't in the US. We are clearly willing to hunt people down. The funny thing is, this guy is looking at a maximum of 5 years. With our parole system that's like 2 years in jail tops. What a tiny punishment.

By that logic we should be able to arrest people in America for doing something that's perfectly legal in their country but illegal in ours. Which is pretty much what is happening at the minute but with the countries revered. Surprise, surprise.

And 2 years in a prison with real criminals is a tiny punishment for putting links to torrent sites on his website? Are you fucking insane?

This guy said it best.

Lol. He didn't break the law in america, he hosted the site from England. In British territory British laws apply and British due procedure is obeyed. By your logic we could arrest EVERY pornography studio in america, because their wares are available in Britain (and depiction on film of real penetration is illegal to make in the UK).
You could argue instead that such laws are above such restrictions, like Human Rights legislation, but that would make you an idiot.

To be fair he didn't put a few links, his entire website is links to pirated content and only pirated content. Not sure if links count since you play the pirated content inside of tv shack, not a different website. This isn't some sort of accident. It's not like the port authorities accidentally unknowingly smuggled 1 container out of thousands. It's like if the port authorities only smuggles hundreds of thousands of illegal crates each day.

That's really only arguing that his crime was way more severe than just linking stuff. As far as the extradition argument which is probably the main core "problem" here, when a criminal is especially dangerous or important to the US other countries are basically forced to cooperate. Your government sold the guy out, and frankly I find it hard to pity the guy.

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

What he is alleged to have done, put simply, isn't illegal - in the UK. So therefore, as a UK national, he shouldn't be extradited. BS "special relationship" or no.

edit: hell... I drove on the left hand side of the road today... should I be extradited because I did something that's illegal in the US?!

 

[kasperbbs]

So i do something that noone in my country gives a crap about, but then some other country comes in and says i'm a criminal there and i have to face trial in a place where i have never even been before? That doesn't sound right at all.

 

[godofallu]

All in all pirating is morally wrong and people that pirate should expect punishment. Foreigners who harm the US shouldn't feel safe just because they aren't in the US. We are clearly willing to hunt people down. The funny thing is, this guy is looking at a maximum of 5 years. With our parole system that's like 2 years in jail tops. What a tiny punishment.

By that logic we should be able to arrest people in America for doing something that's perfectly legal in their country but illegal in ours. Which is pretty much what is happening at the minute but with the countries revered. Surprise, surprise.

And 2 years in a prison with real criminals is a tiny punishment for putting links to torrent sites on his website? Are you fucking insane?

This guy said it best.

Lol. He didn't break the law in america, he hosted the site from England. In British territory British laws apply and British due procedure is obeyed. By your logic we could arrest EVERY pornography studio in america, because their wares are available in Britain (and depiction on film of real penetration is illegal to make in the UK).
You could argue instead that such laws are above such restrictions, like Human Rights legislation, but that would make you an idiot.

To be fair he didn't put a few links, his entire website is links to pirated content and only pirated content. Not sure if links count since you play the pirated content inside of tv shack, not a different website. This isn't some sort of accident. It's not like the port authorities accidentally unknowingly smuggled 1 container out of thousands. It's like if the port authorities only smuggles hundreds of thousands of illegal crates each day.

That's really only arguing that his crime was way more severe than just linking stuff. As far as the extradition argument which is probably the main core "problem" here, when a criminal is especially dangerous or important to the US other countries are basically forced to cooperate. Your government sold the guy out, and frankly I find it hard to pity the guy.

The point is that what he did isn't illegal in the UK. You know, the place he did it. So I don't care how many links he had. It wasn't illegal.

It's disgusting, and you people honestly don't understand why people accuse you of attempting to police the world?

And if you honestly don't think facing jail time for linking websites is far too extreme, there's no point talking to you because you're clearly part of the problem. People need to understand appropriate punishment. Jailtime with hardened criminals is certainly not appropriate. Especially considering he didn't do anything illegal.

It wasn't illegal in the UK so he shouldn't be tried in the UK until they get real laws. Ones that fix obvious loopholes. "links to copyright infringement" is a joke description.

US policing the world- Fair enough, but to be fair he was causing damage to the US. Millions of dollars worth of damage, and profiting from it. By the way it was your country that decided to let us police this guy. The UK is just as much at fault on this one.

I think that people who cause financial damage, knowingly and intentionally, on a mass scale are bad people. TV Shack's entire point/main goal was to provide content that it didn't have the rights to and make money from offering it. It's like photocopying an artists new painting that he spent months creating, and then selling it at a laughably low price. The artists work is still there, but it isn't worth as much. Except he didn't photocopy the work of one artist he did it to thousands and thousands of artists. People who have lives of their own, and families. Shows get canceled and people get fired while some guy rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars with no investment or actual things being created. What kind of person knowingly hurts so many others?

PS: When your website gets shut down and they raid your home, it might be a good idea to go "hey maybe I should stop this action." Instead of acting surprised when they do the exact same thing a second time, and arrest you too.

 

[lockthompson]

This is ridiculous, he didn't do anything wrong in HIS country. Their laws only apply in THEIR country, why should it apply to a UK resident? Wonder what will happen when SOPA passes, will all people who commit some form of piracy be sent to the US as well?

 

[Khanht Cope]

It wasn't illegal in the UK so he shouldn't be tried in the UK until they get real laws.

This shouldn't even be dignified with a response.

US policing the world- Fair enough, but to be fair he was causing damage to the US. Millions of dollars worth of damage, and profiting from it. By the way it was your country that decided to let us police this guy. The UK is just as much at fault on this one.

I think that people who cause financial damage, knowingly and intentionally, on a mass scale are bad people. TV Shack's entire point/main goal was to provide content that it didn't have the rights to and make money from offering it. It's like photocopying an artists new painting that he spent months creating, and then selling it at a laughably low price. The artists work is still there, but it isn't worth as much. Except he didn't photocopy the work of one artist he did it to thousands and thousands of artists. People who have lives of their own, and families. Shows get canceled and people get fired while some guy rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars with no investment or actual things being created. What kind of person knowingly hurts so many others?

Case by case justice and morality here are side issues. I don't object out of pity for this individual.

Lets consider that this guy did not provide pirated content. He provided links to sites that link to pirated content. He did not profit from copyright theft; he provided information that attracted users and sold advertising to those users. Comparable to putting up a sign post that directs you to a district that's notorious for drug crime.

The case can absolutely be made that he did this knowingly; I accept that. Bear in mind the advertisers are no less culpable in this instance if you want to argue the semantics on being a partially or wholly complicit 3rd, 4th and 5th party in illegal activity.

The real issue here: I don't see how, without IP tracking, a single incident of financial damage to US companies can be traced directly to this individual. Unless he links to a specialised site for downloading Hollywood/US movies specifically; even then the extradition case remains mucky. With IP tracking, they could instead be going after the direct criminals.

Real co-operation for justice here should mean due reviews into our own laws and sorting out our own citizens if need be. Keep in mind that I don't spare the rod for my own spineless government in this one.

What they're looking to do here is have a student from a free and civilised country bartered as a diplomatic commodity. He's going to be less than an American citizen, taken to their land where hardly anyone will give a damn about advocating some English nobody who may or may not have defrauded American industry (he's most likely a criminal according to their values anyway) and have his life used as a human experiment so they can set legal precedents for their copyright laws.

This precedent could even see future UK citizens held to absurd US laws.

Be they broad and totalitarian laws on copyright or laws against anything the US might consider to be propagating anti-US sentiment or passive-aggressively supporting anti-US activity.... or whatever BS Congress can think up.

 

[RikuoAmero]

All in all pirating is morally wrong and people that pirate should expect punishment. Foreigners who harm the US shouldn't feel safe just because they aren't in the US. We are clearly willing to hunt people down. The funny thing is, this guy is looking at a maximum of 5 years. With our parole system that's like 2 years in jail tops. What a tiny punishment.

By that logic we should be able to arrest people in America for doing something that's perfectly legal in their country but illegal in ours. Which is pretty much what is happening at the minute but with the countries revered. Surprise, surprise.

And 2 years in a prison with real criminals is a tiny punishment for putting links to torrent sites on his website? Are you fucking insane?

This guy said it best.

Lol. He didn't break the law in america, he hosted the site from England. In British territory British laws apply and British due procedure is obeyed. By your logic we could arrest EVERY pornography studio in america, because their wares are available in Britain (and depiction on film of real penetration is illegal to make in the UK).
You could argue instead that such laws are above such restrictions, like Human Rights legislation, but that would make you an idiot.

To be fair he didn't put a few links, his entire website is links to pirated content and only pirated content. Not sure if links count since you play the pirated content inside of tv shack, not a different website. This isn't some sort of accident. It's not like the port authorities accidentally unknowingly smuggled 1 container out of thousands. It's like if the port authorities only smuggles hundreds of thousands of illegal crates each day.

That's really only arguing that his crime was way more severe than just linking stuff. As far as the extradition argument which is probably the main core "problem" here, when a criminal is especially dangerous or important to the US other countries are basically forced to cooperate. Your government sold the guy out, and frankly I find it hard to pity the guy.

The point is that what he did isn't illegal in the UK. You know, the place he did it. So I don't care how many links he had. It wasn't illegal.

It's disgusting, and you people honestly don't understand why people accuse you of attempting to police the world?

And if you honestly don't think facing jail time for linking websites is far too extreme, there's no point talking to you because you're clearly part of the problem. People need to understand appropriate punishment. Jailtime with hardened criminals is certainly not appropriate. Especially considering he didn't do anything illegal.

It wasn't illegal in the UK so he shouldn't be tried in the UK until they get real laws. Ones that fix obvious loopholes. "links to copyright infringement" is a joke description.

US policing the world- Fair enough, but to be fair he was causing damage to the US. Millions of dollars worth of damage, and profiting from it. By the way it was your country that decided to let us police this guy. The UK is just as much at fault on this one.

I think that people who cause financial damage, knowingly and intentionally, on a mass scale are bad people. TV Shack's entire point/main goal was to provide content that it didn't have the rights to and make money from offering it. It's like photocopying an artists new painting that he spent months creating, and then selling it at a laughably low price. The artists work is still there, but it isn't worth as much. Except he didn't photocopy the work of one artist he did it to thousands and thousands of artists. People who have lives of their own, and families. Shows get canceled and people get fired while some guy rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars with no investment or actual things being created. What kind of person knowingly hurts so many others?

PS: When your website gets shut down and they raid your home, it might be a good idea to go "hey maybe I should stop this action." Instead of acting surprised when they do the exact same thing a second time, and arrest you too.

Financial damage? Where's the proof of that? And don't say "But but, the people clicking the links aren't paying for the DVD/going to the movie theatre".
1) That is an example of a LOST POTENTIAL SALE. Not actual dollars being lost. Or do you seriously think that for every click, that the movie industry's bank account lost X amount of dollars?
2) Your thinking also doesn't factor in the probability of...maybe the people have already paid for legit copies of the movies/TV shows! Case in point - I bought all ten seasons of Stargate SG-1 on DVD. I then also proceeded to download it for easier viewing.
3) You also don't factor in the probability of whether or not this is the new marketplace, the new preferred method of distribution.
I tried Netflix a couple days ago, it just started in my country. What I found was a laughable attempt at a legit service. There was on average 18 titles per genre (and anime was one genre, despite the fact it's actually a Japanese style of motion-picture animation, and not a single genre, like horror or romance), it was based in a Web browser (meaning the advanced controls I like to use in programs like VLC/Media Player Classic aren't present), its a single audio track (again with the anime, it was English Dub only, no option for Japanese audio track).

Compare that with the copyright infringing crowd, and you get EVERYTHING you could ever desire. All the titles you want, all the control you want...
That's what the legit services must offer to keep me interested.

 

[godofallu]

All in all pirating is morally wrong and people that pirate should expect punishment. Foreigners who harm the US shouldn't feel safe just because they aren't in the US. We are clearly willing to hunt people down. The funny thing is, this guy is looking at a maximum of 5 years. With our parole system that's like 2 years in jail tops. What a tiny punishment.

By that logic we should be able to arrest people in America for doing something that's perfectly legal in their country but illegal in ours. Which is pretty much what is happening at the minute but with the countries revered. Surprise, surprise.

And 2 years in a prison with real criminals is a tiny punishment for putting links to torrent sites on his website? Are you fucking insane?

This guy said it best.

Lol. He didn't break the law in america, he hosted the site from England. In British territory British laws apply and British due procedure is obeyed. By your logic we could arrest EVERY pornography studio in america, because their wares are available in Britain (and depiction on film of real penetration is illegal to make in the UK).
You could argue instead that such laws are above such restrictions, like Human Rights legislation, but that would make you an idiot.

To be fair he didn't put a few links, his entire website is links to pirated content and only pirated content. Not sure if links count since you play the pirated content inside of tv shack, not a different website. This isn't some sort of accident. It's not like the port authorities accidentally unknowingly smuggled 1 container out of thousands. It's like if the port authorities only smuggles hundreds of thousands of illegal crates each day.

That's really only arguing that his crime was way more severe than just linking stuff. As far as the extradition argument which is probably the main core "problem" here, when a criminal is especially dangerous or important to the US other countries are basically forced to cooperate. Your government sold the guy out, and frankly I find it hard to pity the guy.

The point is that what he did isn't illegal in the UK. You know, the place he did it. So I don't care how many links he had. It wasn't illegal.

It's disgusting, and you people honestly don't understand why people accuse you of attempting to police the world?

And if you honestly don't think facing jail time for linking websites is far too extreme, there's no point talking to you because you're clearly part of the problem. People need to understand appropriate punishment. Jailtime with hardened criminals is certainly not appropriate. Especially considering he didn't do anything illegal.

It wasn't illegal in the UK so he shouldn't be tried in the UK until they get real laws. Ones that fix obvious loopholes. "links to copyright infringement" is a joke description.

US policing the world- Fair enough, but to be fair he was causing damage to the US. Millions of dollars worth of damage, and profiting from it. By the way it was your country that decided to let us police this guy. The UK is just as much at fault on this one.

I think that people who cause financial damage, knowingly and intentionally, on a mass scale are bad people. TV Shack's entire point/main goal was to provide content that it didn't have the rights to and make money from offering it. It's like photocopying an artists new painting that he spent months creating, and then selling it at a laughably low price. The artists work is still there, but it isn't worth as much. Except he didn't photocopy the work of one artist he did it to thousands and thousands of artists. People who have lives of their own, and families. Shows get canceled and people get fired while some guy rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars with no investment or actual things being created. What kind of person knowingly hurts so many others?

PS: When your website gets shut down and they raid your home, it might be a good idea to go "hey maybe I should stop this action." Instead of acting surprised when they do the exact same thing a second time, and arrest you too.

Financial damage? Where's the proof of that? And don't say "But but, the people clicking the links aren't paying for the DVD/going to the movie theatre".
1) That is an example of a LOST POTENTIAL SALE. Not actual dollars being lost. Or do you seriously think that for every click, that the movie industry's bank account lost X amount of dollars?
2) Your thinking also doesn't factor in the probability of...maybe the people have already paid for legit copies of the movies/TV shows! Case in point - I bought all ten seasons of Stargate SG-1 on DVD. I then also proceeded to download it for easier viewing.
3) You also don't factor in the probability of whether or not this is the new marketplace, the new preferred method of distribution.
I tried Netflix a couple days ago, it just started in my country. What I found was a laughable attempt at a legit service. There was on average 18 titles per genre (and anime was one genre, despite the fact it's actually a Japanese style of motion-picture animation, and not a single genre, like horror or romance), it was based in a Web browser (meaning the advanced controls I like to use in programs like VLC/Media Player Classic aren't present), its a single audio track (again with the anime, it was English Dub only, no option for Japanese audio track).

Compare that with the copyright infringing crowd, and you get EVERYTHING you could ever desire. All the titles you want, all the control you want...
That's what the legit services must offer to keep me interested.

To think that he had the potential to cause lost sales, but that he didn't actually cause any lost sales would be ridiculous. Even a single lost sale is harm, and he caused way more than that.

At the end of the day the legal resources will never provide endless entertainment from every genre for free. They will never be able to keep you interested in comparison. Morality won't keep people (you) from pirating. Which is why laws are invented.

 

[RikuoAmero]

All in all pirating is morally wrong and people that pirate should expect punishment. Foreigners who harm the US shouldn't feel safe just because they aren't in the US. We are clearly willing to hunt people down. The funny thing is, this guy is looking at a maximum of 5 years. With our parole system that's like 2 years in jail tops. What a tiny punishment.

By that logic we should be able to arrest people in America for doing something that's perfectly legal in their country but illegal in ours. Which is pretty much what is happening at the minute but with the countries revered. Surprise, surprise.

And 2 years in a prison with real criminals is a tiny punishment for putting links to torrent sites on his website? Are you fucking insane?

This guy said it best.

Lol. He didn't break the law in america, he hosted the site from England. In British territory British laws apply and British due procedure is obeyed. By your logic we could arrest EVERY pornography studio in america, because their wares are available in Britain (and depiction on film of real penetration is illegal to make in the UK).
You could argue instead that such laws are above such restrictions, like Human Rights legislation, but that would make you an idiot.

To be fair he didn't put a few links, his entire website is links to pirated content and only pirated content. Not sure if links count since you play the pirated content inside of tv shack, not a different website. This isn't some sort of accident. It's not like the port authorities accidentally unknowingly smuggled 1 container out of thousands. It's like if the port authorities only smuggles hundreds of thousands of illegal crates each day.

That's really only arguing that his crime was way more severe than just linking stuff. As far as the extradition argument which is probably the main core "problem" here, when a criminal is especially dangerous or important to the US other countries are basically forced to cooperate. Your government sold the guy out, and frankly I find it hard to pity the guy.

The point is that what he did isn't illegal in the UK. You know, the place he did it. So I don't care how many links he had. It wasn't illegal.

It's disgusting, and you people honestly don't understand why people accuse you of attempting to police the world?

And if you honestly don't think facing jail time for linking websites is far too extreme, there's no point talking to you because you're clearly part of the problem. People need to understand appropriate punishment. Jailtime with hardened criminals is certainly not appropriate. Especially considering he didn't do anything illegal.

It wasn't illegal in the UK so he shouldn't be tried in the UK until they get real laws. Ones that fix obvious loopholes. "links to copyright infringement" is a joke description.

US policing the world- Fair enough, but to be fair he was causing damage to the US. Millions of dollars worth of damage, and profiting from it. By the way it was your country that decided to let us police this guy. The UK is just as much at fault on this one.

I think that people who cause financial damage, knowingly and intentionally, on a mass scale are bad people. TV Shack's entire point/main goal was to provide content that it didn't have the rights to and make money from offering it. It's like photocopying an artists new painting that he spent months creating, and then selling it at a laughably low price. The artists work is still there, but it isn't worth as much. Except he didn't photocopy the work of one artist he did it to thousands and thousands of artists. People who have lives of their own, and families. Shows get canceled and people get fired while some guy rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars with no investment or actual things being created. What kind of person knowingly hurts so many others?

PS: When your website gets shut down and they raid your home, it might be a good idea to go "hey maybe I should stop this action." Instead of acting surprised when they do the exact same thing a second time, and arrest you too.

Financial damage? Where's the proof of that? And don't say "But but, the people clicking the links aren't paying for the DVD/going to the movie theatre".
1) That is an example of a LOST POTENTIAL SALE. Not actual dollars being lost. Or do you seriously think that for every click, that the movie industry's bank account lost X amount of dollars?
2) Your thinking also doesn't factor in the probability of...maybe the people have already paid for legit copies of the movies/TV shows! Case in point - I bought all ten seasons of Stargate SG-1 on DVD. I then also proceeded to download it for easier viewing.
3) You also don't factor in the probability of whether or not this is the new marketplace, the new preferred method of distribution.
I tried Netflix a couple days ago, it just started in my country. What I found was a laughable attempt at a legit service. There was on average 18 titles per genre (and anime was one genre, despite the fact it's actually a Japanese style of motion-picture animation, and not a single genre, like horror or romance), it was based in a Web browser (meaning the advanced controls I like to use in programs like VLC/Media Player Classic aren't present), its a single audio track (again with the anime, it was English Dub only, no option for Japanese audio track).

Compare that with the copyright infringing crowd, and you get EVERYTHING you could ever desire. All the titles you want, all the control you want...
That's what the legit services must offer to keep me interested.

To think that he had the potential to cause lost sales, but that he didn't actually cause any lost sales would be ridiculous. Even a single lost sale is harm, and he caused way more than that.

At the end of the day the legal resources will never provide endless entertainment from every genre for free. They will never be able to keep you interested in comparison. Morality won't keep people (you) from pirating. Which is why laws are invented.

You sell a Widget at X dollars. The guy across the street also sells the same widget, but X - Y (where Y < X) dollars. I compare prices and go to the guy across the street. That's a lost sale for you. According to your definition, I've just harmed you.
And no, I didn't say "he had the potential to cause lost sales, but that he didn't actually cause any lost sales". What I said was "he caused a POTENTIAL LOST SALE" but didn't harm the movie industry in any way. There's a distinct but subtle difference.

Morality for me doesn't come into my equation when it comes to spending my hard-earned cash, so we do have something to agree on there. I look around and see for example, a DVD on the shelf for 20 bucks. It's a 1 disc movie, no fancy extras, the movie is almost twenty years old.
I consider the price being asked and say no, I won't pay that much. They're demanding far too much for far too little.
In my example above, I said I bought the entire series of Stargate SG-1. In that case, the price being offered was, I felt, a fair one, considering what was being offered. So I paid.
"At the end of the day the legal resources will never provide endless entertainment from every genre for free. They will never be able to keep you interested in comparison."
And if they can't do that...why should I support them? If Napster and Bittorent were able to so easily deliver content to me for free, why couldn't they, considering they're the source of the content? Why not try and beat us at our own game, or pre-empt the next big thing? Instead of trying to freeze the world into the "pay for the DVD/movie theatre" business model?

 

[estro_pajo]

To think that he had the potential to cause lost sales, but that he didn't actually cause any lost sales would be ridiculous. Even a single lost sale is harm, and he caused way more than that.

At the end of the day the legal resources will never provide endless entertainment from every genre for free. They will never be able to keep you interested in comparison. Morality won't keep people (you) from pirating. Which is why laws are invented.

You clearly understand very little about the law, the real calculations of modern entertainment business and the world in general.

Firstly your opinion doesn't matter. You think that we in the EU have silly laws? Well allow me to laugh in your face because we don't care what you think. American law ends with your borders and doesn't go any further. UK has a soft spot for the US, which is unfortunate in my opinion, but basically all America can do in Europe is to ask nicely and wait for reply.
The first verdict in this case was predictable, as usually low instances are more severe, but eventually will get overturned in a higher court. It happens all the time.

Secondly, when it comes to money lost by American companies, all they can do is seek compensation or justice in a country the offence was committed and can do so by their local branch. The whole "tried in our local court" applies only to cases within boundaries of a given country. It is written as a letter of law in that country and therefore applies only to its territory.
In this case the greed transcends borders and the companies are trying the new extradition law, they want to know what they can do and set a precedent. In my opinion they're not holding their breaths, but they had to try. Any consumer that agrees with them is dumb as a shoe and doesn't understand the basics dynamics of a capitalistic society.
Also the lost sales are NEVER counted the way you tried to. I work in media and this sort of bias I see frequently when uneducated people are trying to pass their opinions as facts. Truth of the matter is that a lost potential sale equals zero dollars lost.
Unofficially it is attributed, for internal use only, that about 5-10% of the people that pirated would by the product legally (it is used for making sales predictions for other products). Officially the company may say anything, like that they have lost a megatrizillion dollars but in court that wouldn't carry any weight. This is something that is only being released to the media as a scoop and maybe a deterrent, a PR stunt if you will, but in the end doesn't matter at all.

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

Unless he links to a specialised site for downloading Hollywood/US movies specifically; even then the extradition case remains mucky.

Mucky?!

There isn't a case for extradition when the person concerned hasn't done anything illegal in the country they would be extradited from

Firstly your opinion doesn't matter. You think that we in the EU have silly laws? Well allow me to laugh in your face because we don't care what you think. American law ends with your borders and doesn't go any further. UK has a soft spot for the US, which is unfortunate in my opinion, but basically all America can do in Europe is to ask nicely and wait for reply.

...The reply being "get knotted, asshats." Or possibly something along those lines, just a touch more diplomatic. Hopefully Call-me-Dave, Cleggy-weggy & co. will actually have the balls to stand up for and protect one of their citizens. Here's hoping, for Richard O'Dwyer's sake, anyway.