US Trying To Extradite UK TVShack Admin Over Questionable Copyright Charges?

from the copyright-gone-mad dept

In the latest example of US copyright interests gone mad, there are reports that there's an attempt to extradite the admin of TVShack from the UK to the US to face criminal copyright infringement charges. This is ridiculous on all sorts of levels. First, TVShack.net was one of the very first domains seized a year ago. TVShack did not host any content and was merely a linking site, which raised questions (as with other seizures) about whether or not it actually violated US copyright law. Also, TVShack has gone through a few different versions and (potentially) owners/admins. However, one of the admins, Richard O'Dwyer, a computer science student, was recently arrested. It's not clear if anyone even knows which instance of TVShack he's accused of running.

Where this becomes really troubling is that other, very similar sites have been found legal in the UK multiple times. Running a site that users use to put up links and which doesn't host any actual content, is not seen as illegal in the UK. So it seems particularly ridiculous that there's some sort of attempt to extradite the guy to the US to face charges here. As some have pointed out it appears to be "an attempt to make US federal laws applicable in the UK."

Unfortunately, the details of the extradition request are a bit muddled in all of the UK papers reporting on it. Lots of them are comparing the situation to the famous Gary McKinnon situation, but I think this is clearly different. This just seems blatantly vindictive for no good reason.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 8:38am

    Pretty neat, lets treat people accused of copyright infringement like drug lords. Let us extradite them, try them, throw them in jail with consecutive sentences, and let them rot for 250 years in the darkest box we can find.

    Seems like this is going to be more great PR for RIAA and the MPAA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 8:43am

      Re:

      It's now a government thing.

      It's censorship.

      Fact remains that if you're looking at this with the words of Dan Glickman in mind (ie "making piracy as difficult as possible"), you see that they're targeting admins to try to make life hell for those that just want to run a site.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Hephaestus (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:35am

        Re: Re:

        In this case, they are using a law that doesn't exist, in an attempt to extradite a person from a country where what he is doing is legal. I understand that they are trying to make life difficult for the admins. But, escalting to this level, of almost certain illegality, just seems like an act of desperation on the part of the ICE and the DOJ.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "just seems like an act of desperation on the part of the ICE and the DOJ"

          That implies they knew what they were doing in the first place.

          Face it, they were listening to the MPAA and RIAA about copyright infringement. How is that ever a good idea?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 2:55pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You've got it wrong. Completely wrong. It's not desperation. They're testing the waters. "How far can we actually go?"

          If this one case "works", then they start doing the same for tons more sites, effectively killing the local laws. Then they move on to another country. It's all part of their lobbying program with other nations as well.

          It's simply the next step in their "We will rule you" agenda. Obviously we missed the memo that every gov employee got to step it up.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:07am

      Re:

      Forget the dark hole. Lets put him in a jail cell with bubba, the 300 pound, HIV infected, gay rapist. This way the record label get the death penalty they have been wanting for infringement. And Mike gets to do a story titled "Accusation of Copyright Infringement Leads to Death Sentence by The US Courts".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 7:04pm

      Re: Costing The US Taxpayer

      "lets treat people accused of copyright infringement like drug lords" -- Yup, so how is that whole "War on Drugs" thing panning out for you? Big success is it? Hardly costs the ole US taxpayer anything, is that right? Getting ready to declare "Mission Accomplished" sometime soon now, are you? Noticed how those Mexican drug lords are going to go broke and turn into nice law-abiding citizens, any day now? Or maybe not?

      Now, at the behest of a tiny industry of no economic importance, the US government is attempting to ramp up another whole system of repression to try to stamp out file sharing. Good move, guys, take on your whole teenage and young adult population, so you can suck up to a tiny bunch of thugs who are cultural vandals. It would be interesting to work out the total cost to the US taxpayer of all this madness, in a year, then compare it to the total profits of the industry, for the same period.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 7:23pm

        Re: Re: Costing The US Taxpayer

        Yup, so how is that whole "War on Drugs" thing panning out for you? Big success is it?

        For your information, YES. It has allowed the law enforcement and prison industries to grow in ways that would have most likely been impossible without it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dave, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 8:43am

    an attempt to make US federal laws applicable in the UK

    It's even worse than that. It's an attempt to make up US law and make the made up law apply in the UK.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rabbit80, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:01am

    This makes me wonder what would happen if I am running a site that hosts content that is in the public domain where I live - can I be extradited to a country where that content is not in the public domain to face trial?

    For example - the works of James Joyce will become public domain next year in ireland - could i be treated as a criminal and be extradited to the US for trial for hosting it when it does? That's insane.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 11:55am

      Re:

      For example - the works of James Joyce will become public domain next year in ireland - could i be treated as a criminal and be extradited to the US for trial for hosting it when it does?

      Of course. U.S. law trumps all other.

      That's insane.

      It's up to Ireland to keep their laws up to date with the U.S. If they are negligent and don't, then that's what happens.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Someantimalwareguy, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:05pm

        Re: Re:

        I hope you simply missed the /snark tag when posting or you have no clue regarding what obligations any nation has to another as far as adhering to the laws of that other country are concerned; regardless of existing treaties...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Dave, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 2:01pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I sympathize. The trolls here take such absurd stances that it is really really tough to detect sarcasm. I think the post above yours is sarcasm, though. We'll go with that.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:05am

    If I remember correctly, the site was an embedded video display site, not just a random link site. I think it's stated goal was to bypass copyright restrictions. It would seem that the site operator was aware of what he was including as part of his site.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:13am

      Re:

      What I never understood is why no one's going after the people who are actually uploading or hosting this content. Taking down a site like this doesn't seem like it would be very effective.

      "If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause.
      It's quite a lot like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze.
      If you instead attempt to rest the pistol from the hand, I would not be able to equate my life with sand."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        abc gum, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:22am

        Re: Re:

        "What I never understood is why no one's going after the people who are actually uploading or hosting this content. "

        Apparently that is too time consuming and costly. In typical business as usual fashion, the shortest route to profit is pursued.

        ..... Nothing personal, it's just business.
        It doesn't matter how vehemently they deny it, Business Ethics is an oxymoron.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        DannyB (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 10:30am

        Re: Re:

        > I never understood is why no one's going after
        > the people who are actually uploading or hosting

        Why? Because it is always Always ALWAYS easier to go after an innocent party.

        That's because an innocent party is not trying to hide.

        Get mugged next to a building, it's the building owner's fault! Facilitators and Enablers!

        Get robbed on a bus? It's the bus company's fault! Facilitators and Enablers!

        Find a link to infringing content using Google? It's Google's fault! They are building their business on infringement! Facilitators and Enablers! Don't go after the people who put up the infringing content (clue: which is not necessarily the site that hosts it). That would prevent you from shaking down others such as Yahoo, Bing or others. (Sort of like mass infringement shakedown letters.)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 11:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's these sorts of nonsensical, alarmist, Chicken Little statements that totally defeat the arguments of those who oppose the Protect IP Act and similar legislation and laws. Google, Bing and yahoo are not "dedicated to infringing activities" and "serve no other legitimate commercial purpose". TVShack meets that definition. When the guys who vote on these bills hear absurd claims like the law makes Google liable as an enabler they literally laugh out loud.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            When the guys who vote on these bills hear absurd claims like the law makes Google liable as an enabler they literally laugh out loud.

            I think the real laughing was probably going on as they wrote them.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            btr1701, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > "dedicated to infringing activities" and
            > "serve no other legitimate commercial purpose

            Those are what we in the lawyering business call weasel words. They're specifically designed to be as vague and as open to interpretation as possible to enable situations where you don't know what they *actually* mean until you're in cuffs facing a judge or staring down the barrel of a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

            In other words, "dedicated to infringing activities" means what the prosecutor wants it to mean and the government gets to decide it, a case-by-case basis, so as to provide no bright line standard against which people can judge their conduct or to which the government can be held accountable.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 1:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              CDT lawyers were largely responsible for the definition of a rogue website in the Protect IP Act. Perhaps you should contact them with a more useful definition, or even offer one here. Or better still, why don't you agree to represent this poor innocent youth pro bono after he's extradited to the US?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                btr1701, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 1:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                > Perhaps you should contact them with a more
                > useful definition, or even offer one here.
                > Or better still, why don't you agree to
                > represent this poor innocent youth pro bono
                > after he's extradited to the US?

                Or even better yet, why don't I just do what I can to oppose my government becoming the personal enforcement arm of the entertainment industry and greasing up and bending over for their every whim?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Dave, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 2:04pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  There isn't any grease involved.

                  Oh! You mean the government gets grease! I know I sure haven't got any.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 5:24pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Oh, that should help the kid.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    btr1701 (profile), Jun 18th, 2011 @ 12:12pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    > Oh, that should help the kid.

                    The kid has his own lawyers, who are actually licensed to practice in the UK. I can't personally intervene in every injustice on the planet. Doesn't mean I shouldn't object to them when I see them happening.

                    You seem to be of the opinion that unless someone is ready to drop everything and hop on a flight to Britain and personally take up this guy's cause, they shouldn't say anything about it.

                    Nonsense.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            techflaws.org (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            they literally laugh out loud.

            [citation needed]

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            iBelieve, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 3:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            At earlier times when these companies were just starting up welcomed any and all content to draw in the viewers and hits. Now that they are rich and could possibly survive the next three economic collapses, they not only deny that infringing content is totally unacceptable, but vehemently deny ever utilizing that content. They would have us believe they have all earned their angelic wings.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              iBelieve, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 3:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Correction: They not only suggest that infringing content is totally unacceptable, but deny ever utilizing infringed content.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        iBelieve, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 3:44pm

        Re: Re:

        I have no doubt that in many cases the same people suing are the very same people uploading the content in an attempt to sting internet audiences in the ass and then sue them. Sound familiar?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Bengie, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:15am

      Re:

      and it was found *legal* in the UK where the site resides

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      I should point out..., Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:18am

      Re:

      ... that all of that is irrelevant. You can't be charged with breaking a law that does not exists. Their intentions are irrelevant if they never violated a law.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:25am

        Re: Re:

        Uh, everything is against the law, God! You freetards are so stupid.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I shall make all laws apply globally. These are the three Laws of life:

          1) If you download a film, your life and that of your antedecents and descendents are forfeit;
          2) If you download a song, your testicles/ovaries are forfeit;
          3) If you defraud the government, you get a raise and more ways to defraud the government.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:36am

      Re:

      I'd ask for a citation, but I think we all know that would be a waste of time.

      "If I remember correctly, ..."

      "I think ..."

      "It would seem ..."

      Yep, real solid evidence there, troll.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      anonymous, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:38am

      Re:

      if what you say here is true, he would have been found guilty of copyright infringement in the UK. from what i understand, that is not the case

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:48am

      Re:

      If I remember correctly, the site was an embedded video display site, not just a random link site. I think it's stated goal was to bypass copyright restrictions. It would seem that the site operator was aware of what he was including as part of his site.

      Right. And if the site was aimed at the US, the site's operator would be opening himself up to jurisdiction in the US. This is nothing new. It matters not if it's legal where he resides. You can't just hide in another country and intentionally break US law and get away with it. The feds are clearly sending a message to would-be infringers who think otherwise.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 10:01am

        Re: Re:

        Well, sure. If they were breaking a law that actually existed in the US.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          abc gum, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 10:10am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Well, sure. If they were breaking a law that actually existed in the US."

          Even if it were a real law, the assertion is debatable.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Niall (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 5:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Well, given that the US now has laws on its books that allow citizens to 'break' laws of other countries (read: stupid libel laws, etc.) with no harm to them, then how should it work the other way, other than "America uber alles"?

            Once you start down the "you broke a law in my country even though you were in your country" then all laws boil down to those of the nastiest dictatorship/theocracy.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 11:12am

        Re: Re:

        Mohammed was a child rapist and Islam is a shit religion. Know what I did there? I broke a Saudi Arabian law that says Thou Shalt Not Insult the Islamic Religion. I'm hiding in a different country. Should I be extradited to S.A. to face the death penalty?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:03pm

        Re: Re:

        Right. And if the site was aimed at the US, the site's operator would be opening himself up to jurisdiction in the US.

        How do you "aim" a website? A steady hand?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        btr1701, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:45pm

        Re: Re:

        > And if the site was aimed at the US, the site's
        > operator would be opening himself up to
        > jurisdiction in the US

        You apparently have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the law of jurisdiction if you believe that "aiming a web site at the US" somehow gives the US government jurisdiction over you.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        btr1701, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:46pm

        Re: Re:

        > And if the site was aimed at the US, the site's
        > operator would be opening himself up to
        > jurisdiction in the US

        You apparently have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the law of jurisdiction if you believe that "aiming a web site at the US" somehow gives the US government jurisdiction over you.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rich Fiscus (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 3:24pm

        Re: Re:

        >> You can't just hide in another country and intentionally break US law and get
        >> away with it.
        Really? Then explain to me how SlySoft and FengTao Software manage to sell DVD and Blu-ray ripping software to US customers, which would be a violation of the DMCA, with no repercussions.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Michael, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 5:50pm

        Re: Re:

        If I didn't want to be extradited to the states, I could just convince some backwater Texas town that I committed a murder in their town. That would effectively make it illegal for my country to extradite me...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        iBelieve, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 4:06pm

        Re: Re:

        I have no doubt that business models attempting to cut costs of hard copies and physical marketing in the real world has led to this playground of cat and mouse and these models continue to evolve as court decisions are enabling them near to rewrite the laws 100% as this is deemed to be profitable, but wisdom tells me this only leads to the chilling effect of breaking down the system as so much time being spent in the courts is always counter productive especially in a society that is defunked and needing a fresh breath of life blown into it to help revive its ailing economy.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 14th, 2011 @ 12:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "especially in a society that is defunked" - I hope that was a pun, it works quite well anyway :)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 11:58am

      Re:

      If I remember correctly, the site was an embedded video display site, not just a random link site.

      I don't think anybody was claiming that the links were random. Why would you make up something like that?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Planespotter (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

      Re:

      and if the embedded videos where hosted by legitimate websites like Youtube what then? Is the site still liable or is Youtube?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 10:20am

    "This just seems blatantly vindictive for no good reason."

    i disagree with you on that last statement. The US government is doing this in a "last-ditch-effort" to be seen as the power of the planet. With companies leaving the US in droves the US is not taken very seriously anymore. So this attempt to have him extradicted is trying to show that they are still serious about things in the US......such as showing they no longer stand for what it preaches. but thats just my opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 10:54am

      Re:

      The US is a failing world power. With leadership like we have here, passing any law that is put in front of them for the bargin basment price of a couple election contributions. Corporations using this to regulate competition out of the market. The patent system set up in a way that only corporations with a ton of money are capable of fighting off lawsuits. It all leads to monopoly status for a few corporations and a stifling of all competition and innovation. It also leads to the failure of those US corporations in one huge and tremendous collapse, as external competition, innovation, and adapatability whittle away at them.

      Kinda sad if you think about it, becoming a country whose politicians do anything to support the monopolies and incumbents is leading to this countries failure.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 10:33am

    What's good for the goose

    Can another country extradite people out of the US for merely being a technical admin of a site that may be against the law in the other country?

    As a US citizen, I hope it works both ways.

    After all, if my government is doing it, it must be a good thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Nathan F (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 10:52am

      Re: What's good for the goose

      Our newspapers and TV News programs might be in for a big surprise then. To make matters worse a lot of them may have a local office in the country in question.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 10:50am

    Wow, it seems just like the other day when people were lauding the US judicial system for its fair and reasoned judgment in the Rigtshaven case... oh, right it was just the other day. Funny how the overall fairness of US jurisprudence changes from one day to the next on Techdirt. Personally, I think Masnick should put his money where is mouth is and fund a legal defense for this poor, misunderstood lad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:12pm

      Re:

      The extradition request is from the DOJ - a part of the Executive Branch. The Righthaven judgement was from a federal judge - the Judiciary Branch.

      So no, not an inconsistent opinion at all, even if you do try to conflate the two branches under the term "jurisprudence". Nice try, though.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 3:21pm

        Re: Re:

        Oh, Ok are you saying that the courts are righteous and fair and the DOJ evil then? 99% of the blockheads here don't know or care that Justice and the courts are different branches of government. The government is "bad" when there's an action or decision they disagree with and "good" when a decision like Rightshaven comes down. The bottom line is that people make sweeping generalizations about judges being on the take and agencies being corrupt when the only thing that has happened is that an action was taken or judgement entered they disagree with. Pretty pathetic.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          BeeAitch (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 3:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Good news: the price of tea in China is down considerably.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Any Mouse (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 5:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Let's clear this up for you:

          In the Righthaven case, we were lauding a judge, not the whole judicial branch.

          In this case, we're berating the DoJ, who are trying to force our laws outside of our sovereignty.

          Now, how are you so able to confuse the two of these? How are we 'blockheads' when you're the one that's trying to muddy the issue?

          Little troll, please take your drool and go home?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          techflaws.org (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:55pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          99% of the blockheads here don't know or care that Justice and the courts are different branches of government.

          [citation needed]

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws.org (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:54pm

      Re:

      Personally, I think

      Tough luck that nobody cares what you think.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 10:52am

    Oh, more good news. Amy Klobuchar's streaming bill passed out of committee by unanimous vote. Wyden won't don't dare hold this one either, so break out the hankies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 11:00am

    We're all getting more than a little tired of the U.S.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 11:43am

    The simple fact is if it's not illegal where he's doing it, what right do we have to hold him to the laws of a country in which he is not a citizen? I mean quite frankly if you're going to give it validity then I maintain that to take it to extremes to demonstrate my point, every person that comes in contact with the internet is potentially legally responsible for knowing and abiding by the laws of every country of the world simultaneously in both action and intent. In short, it's unacceptable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      btr1701, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

      Re:

      > to take it to extremes to demonstrate my point,
      > every person that comes in contact with the
      > internet is potentially legally responsible for
      > knowing and abiding by the laws of every country
      > of the world simultaneously in both action and
      > intent. In short, it's unacceptable.

      Not only that, it would quickly lead to a situation where the internet and the people of the world are only as free as the most oppressive country on earth's law allows.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 2:06pm

        Re: Re:

        Not only that, it would quickly lead to a situation where the internet and the people of the world are only as free as the most oppressive country on earth's law allows.

        That's the whole idea.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:06pm

    Extradition from UK is explicitly prohibited if "The person has been, or could be, or will be sentenced to death".

    It can't be ruled out given the pace USA is turning to a police state.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    btr1701, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    Jurisdiction

    It'll be interesting to see if Average Joe/FUD Buster/whatever he's calling himself now says about this. He was so insistent that the US was not attempting to apply its laws internationally by seizing domains because technically those domains were managed by a US company even though the site and all its business was operated and conducted overseas.

    Now here we have a clearcut case of the US attempting to impose criminal liability on a man for doing something perfectly legal in his own country, but which nevertheless is counter to US law. The very act of attempting to extradite and charge him means that the US believes its laws apply to every person on earth.

    Which is total bullshit.

    And how long before other countries start trying to do the same to American citizens? Can Iran extradite a US citizen for "disrespecting Islam" or a woman for appearing on the internet "immodestly" sans burqa? Can China make the case that Americans who exercise free speech on the internet are violating Chinese law and therefore should be turned over for trial?

    If not, why not? If we can do it, why can't they?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 2:13pm

      Re: Jurisdiction

      And how long before other countries start trying to do the same to American citizens?

      Might makes right. America has invested in building the worlds strongest military for a reason. When some other country builds a bigger one, then they can be top dog. But, for now, it's America and America rules the world. So piss off, comrade.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      AussieShaun, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 8:12pm

      Re: Jurisdiction

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 8:34pm

        Re: Re: Jurisdiction

        ". A condition of his repatriation to Australia was that he never again re-enter the United States of America, a country he parenthetically had never visited before being extradited to it."

        ... We're a nation of laws but seriously? He'd NEVER VISITED the US and he got charged by the US Justice system? Wow...

        Just... Wow...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 7:27am

      Re: Jurisdiction

      It'll be interesting to see if Average Joe/FUD Buster/whatever he's calling himself now says about this. He was so insistent that the US was not attempting to apply its laws internationally by seizing domains because technically those domains were managed by a US company even though the site and all its business was operated and conducted overseas.

      Now here we have a clearcut case of the US attempting to impose criminal liability on a man for doing something perfectly legal in his own country, but which nevertheless is counter to US law. The very act of attempting to extradite and charge him means that the US believes its laws apply to every person on earth.

      Which is total bullshit.

      And how long before other countries start trying to do the same to American citizens? Can Iran extradite a US citizen for "disrespecting Islam" or a woman for appearing on the internet "immodestly" sans burqa? Can China make the case that Americans who exercise free speech on the internet are violating Chinese law and therefore should be turned over for trial?

      If not, why not? If we can do it, why can't they?


      You're a savvy federal agent. Surely you understand how jurisdiction works. I've explained it to you before. As you know, you can break US law and be extradited to the US if certain conditions are met.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Gwiz (profile), Jun 17th, 2011 @ 8:43am

        Re: Re: Jurisdiction

        You and your type scare the shit out of me. Not, because I personally fear you in way, shape or form, but because of how your misguided shortsightedness could screw up our future generations.

        You are so willing and eager to send your copyright bandwagons down those slippery slopes without even a single coherent thought of what impact it may have.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 9:00am

          Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction

          You are so willing and eager to send your copyright bandwagons down those slippery slopes without even a single coherent thought of what impact it may have.

          I think they actually know and that's part of their motivation. They're just greedy and evil.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        btr1701, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 9:18am

        Re: Re: Jurisdiction

        > As you know, you can break US law and be
        > extradited to the US if certain conditions
        > are met.

        And what are those "certain conditions", oh vague oracle?

        How exactly does the US Congress legally pass a law which purportedly binds the entire population of the world to follow it?

        If I'm a citizen of Indonesia, what principle of law requires me to abide by laws passed by the US Congress-- a legislative body in a country of which I am not a citizen, in which I have no representation, and cannot vote to affect?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 9:31am

          Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction

          If I'm a citizen of Indonesia, what principle of law requires me to abide by laws passed by the US Congress-- a legislative body in a country of which I am not a citizen, in which I have no representation, and cannot vote to affect?

          They're collective known as the laws of physics, and describe the results of a bullet passing through your head or a cruise missile coming through in your window. Any more questions?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            BeeAitch (profile), Jun 17th, 2011 @ 11:39am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction

            You can't answer the question asked. Why would anyone ask more questions? I think it would be better to wait until your mind has developed enough to answer a single question at a time before we hit you with more.

            Learn to walk before you run, Forrest.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            BeeAitch (profile), Jun 17th, 2011 @ 11:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction

            "If I'm a citizen of Indonesia, what principle of law requires me to abide by laws passed by the US Congress...?"

            I'll even help you out, AC. The answer is none.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 1:08pm

    Citizens of USA usually think their laws apply internationally. When you explain to them the truth, they just call you a Communist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Any Mouse (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 5:32pm

      Re:

      Broad, sweeping accusations against people you do not know, do not understand, and are viewing through the lens of a corrupt government are why many of my friends despise foreigners. Don't take the time to know that what they're saying about us is pure bullshit.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 8:37pm

      Re:

      Door's to your left.

      We aren't calling you a communist. But thinking that the citizens of the US are the same as the ruling elite is beyond stupid.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 8:56pm

        Re: Re:

        Door's to your left.

        How dare he criticize us!

        But thinking that the citizens of the US are the same as the ruling elite is beyond stupid.

        I bet he even thinks that the U.S. has a government elected by the citizens.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          G Thompson (profile), Jun 17th, 2011 @ 2:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I bet he even thinks that the U.S. has a government elected by the citizens.

          Nah, Every non-USA citizen knows that only Democratic non-Republic countries have purely citizen elected government.

          ;)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 1:24pm

    Someone needs to sort out the laws, who's law is it anyway?
    Once you start trying to apply US laws to else were whats to say that this cannot be reversed. Post something offensive or someone doesnt like in US and Russia, China or even Wales takes offence. Whats to say you cannot be found guilty and face consequences abroad. Be careful what you wish for. :P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 2:04pm

      Re:

      Post something offensive or someone doesnt like in US and Russia, China or even Wales takes offence. Whats to say you cannot be found guilty and face consequences abroad.

      Then don't post anything. Simple. Problem solved.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 2:20pm

        Re: Re:

        Then don't post anything. Simple. Problem solved.

        I think that's what the government and it's corporate partners (especially the entertainment business ones) really want: To put the internet genie back in the bottle and turn it into a one-way broadcast medium where what people say can be more easily controlled. The only two-way ability they want is for people to be able to input credit card numbers to buy stuff.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 5:49pm

    Is the US government going to seek the extradition of every person in the UK between the ages of 18 and 21 for the crime of underage drinking?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chris in Utah (profile), Jun 16th, 2011 @ 9:23pm

      Re:

      Considering we cant even figure out the age of consent and methods of coherence from state to state? Top of that in most countries your allowed to hunt at the age of 12 but not have sex or drink. Scratch that, you can drink at 12 in some countries. Oh, and don't get me started on people being stuck in sex offender tent cities because they decided to fall in love with a freshmen in high-school there graduating year. Fun fact, it was 10 originally in English common law and gradually grew from there.

      It's amazing how many times I see the Eudophilia poster in the demotivationals.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Jun 17th, 2011 @ 2:45am

      Re:

      Actually its only a crime to supply alcohol to children under 18, its NOT an offence for them to drink alcohol if they are under 18 in UK, Australia, New Zealand (Not sure about Canada). Most kids are allowed alcohol with meals when they are teenagers ie: Wine, Mead, Port, etc

      This allows them knowledge on the responsible consumation of it. (or is supposed too)

      There was a huge crap-fight in the USA when Harry potter et.al had the audacity to drink Mead and eggnog when they were 15/16 years old. *eye roll*

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        The eejit (profile), Jun 17th, 2011 @ 4:02am

        Re: Re:

        The legal age for drinking in restaurantsx is FIVE in the UK, provided it accompanies a meal asnd a parent accompanies them. You are legally allowed to enter a licensed venue after 7PM at the age of 14, purchase soft drinks at 16 and purchase alcohol at 18.

        Just so's you know. :)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Philly Bob (profile), Jun 17th, 2011 @ 8:30am

        Re: Re:

        How many countries is the legal age of consent 14 years old? It's 16 in the US so we should extradite anyone from those countries and lock them up as child molesters. The world MUST see things our way or die!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        btr1701, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 9:21am

        Re: Re:

        > This allows them knowledge on the responsible
        > consumation of it.

        I think you mean consumption. Consumation brings to mind a whole other thing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bryan O'Doyle, Jun 17th, 2011 @ 2:01pm

    What IS the meaning of IS

    From the article: "Running a site that users use to put up links and which doesn't host any actual content, is not seen as illegal in the UK."

    Look, I put a link in a 'What's on your mind' field/ Share dealyhickey, on Facebook. I put that link there. I have no idea if Facebook has code which then goes and finds the material the link I shared goes to and then grabs that content and makes a copy on Facebook's servers, but somehow I doubt it.

    So, a site which users can post links, and which does not host the content.

    Holy shit, I might be extradited to the land of Jefferson, Franklin and Webster? Yeeeha!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    CoffeeGuy8975, Jun 18th, 2011 @ 1:57pm

    Extradition for links??!!

    There's only one way to stop this madness:

    If Everyone suddenly started putting links to online streams of American TV shows on their Facebook pages, blogs, etc. in protest.

    One of the more convenient places to find links is here:
    http://mrbrownee70.com/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This