British Student Faces Extradition To US Over Copyright

An anonymous reader writes "A 23-year-old British computer student faces possible extradition to the U.S. for linking to copyrighted content on his website. The student, Richard O'Dwyer, was accused of copyright infringement after setting up the website TV Shack, which had links to thousands of films and tv shows, but did not directly host them."

Comments

Pointless

[funkatron]

TV-shack, seriously? That was a link site and a damn good one. What kind of twunt is trying to prosecute this guy for running a really good site.

Re:Pointless

[milkmage]

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
ICE is the twunt... yes that ICE.

The website was seized by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. O'Dywer was arrested on May 23, brought to Wandsworth prison and then released on a £3,000 bail paid by his aunt.

I assume the US wants him extradited so he can face prosecution HERE.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
ICE is the twunt... yes that ICE.

The website was seized by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. O'Dywer was arrested on May 23, brought to Wandsworth prison and then released on a £3,000 bail paid by his aunt.

I assume the US wants him extradited so he can face prosecution HERE.

Isn't extradition more of a murder type thing?
Copyright? What a joke.

Re:Pointless

[funkatron]

Prosecution for what?? There was no mention of him doing anything wrong in the article.

Re:Pointless

[mwvdlee]

The US wants him extradited so they can prosecute him for alleged crimes in the UK?
I didn't know the US jurisdiction stretched that far over their borders.

Re:Pointless

[zill]

Soviet prisoner #1: So how long is your sentence?
Soviet prisoner #2: 10 years.
Soviet prisoner #1: What did you do?
Soviet prisoner #2: Nothing.
Soviet prisoner #1: You liar! "Nothing" gets you 20 years under the PATRIOT ACT.

Re:Pointless

[paulo.casanova]

C'mon, the US never really cared about jurisdiction in the first place... Dmitry Sklyarov anyone?

Re:Pointless

[LurkerXXX]

ICE is the twunt... yes that ICE.

Intelligence and Counter Espionage? Why would they be after him? Someone needs to call up Mat Helm and find out.

Re:Pointless

[dhammabum]

Isn't extradition more of a murder type thing?

Oh no, extradition is an exciting new method for suppression .. er.. enforcement!. Extradition for modifying legally purchased property was successful (Sony) and we are trialling dubious sex crimes which will flow on to publishing documents (Wikileaks). The coffers of large corporations and governments are the limit!

Re:Pointless

[MysteriousPreacher]

The UK signed up to an Interestingly one-sided extradition treaty which is best summed up as follows:

US: We want on of your citizens for x crimes
UK: Do you have the kind of evidence we would require in order to press charges?
US: No
UK: He'll be on the 2:30 to O'Hare

Re:Pointless

[lothos]

TVShack wasn't just seized once, it was seized TWICE.

tvshack.net was the original domain, which switched to tvshack.cc after it was seized. They then put up a video of the song "Fuck the police" on the homepage. They were seized a second time.

http://www.domaincensorship.com/2010/11/tvshack-cc-seized-again/

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, dumbass.

Re:Pointless

[seeker_1us]

Not to mention the fact that he didn't violate any copyright. Links do not make copies.

Re:Pointless

[shutdown -p now]

Sklyarov is a bad example, because he was in US when he was arrested, and US definitely has jurisdiction on its own territory.

Re:Pointless

[mug funky]

whoosh, dumbass.

Re:Pointless

[Opportunist]

The scary part is that the soviet version punchline goes "Liar! For nothing you only get 5 years".

Re:Pointless

[billcopc]

The UK probably likes this arrangement, because it's easier to ship someone off than have to deal with the issue themselves.

No, I'm not trying to be funny. I am genuinely that pessimistic about the UK government, because I'm watching the same shit happen to Canada, one Neo-Con at a time.

Re:Pointless

[rtb61]

This one sounds like the US has no real interest at all in the case, they are just trying to lower the bar for extradition cases, with the aim of targeting other people. This guy is just seems to be a victim of a political game, with the intention of making it easier to extradite other people currently in the UK for the crime of handling intellectual property that the US does not want them to.

So will the British government and the British people just role over and become another third world country when it comes to providing the citizens justice against politically motivated chargers by the US government.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy who was found no guilty because he wasn't in the US when he committed the alleged crime?

Re:Pointless

[MysteriousPreacher]

It was due to Tony Blair's belief that the special transatlantic friendship required the UK to act like a girl who drops anything and comes running when her boyfriend wants a fuck, in the belief that being completely servile to a disinterested bully will one-day lead to a marriage proposal. Same pattern of thought during the second gulf war. Give America what it wants in the hope of maintaining this special relationship and giving the UK influence over America's actions. Blair would have skull fucked a puppy if he believed it'd lead to Bush walking him down the aisle at some dingy Vegas chapel.

Re:Pointless

[Fjandr]

That was my first thought. The US has absolutely no possible way to claim jurisdiction, unless the site he ran was hosted on US-based servers. From what I can tell, the host was in China prior to being seized by ICE.

Not that jurisdiction means much in the US anymore.

Re:Pointless

[Joce640k]

Prosecution for annoying the people who pay for US Senator's lunches. Haven't you been paying attention?

Re:Pointless

[MirthScout]

He was in Russia when he did the things he was acused of. The US definitely does not have jurisdiction. That he later visited the US where he was arrested does not give the US juristiction.

Re:Pointless

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

They don't seem to have any desire to ship off the people pushing sharia law.

Re:Pointless

[williamhb]

This one sounds like the US has no real interest at all in the case, they are just trying to lower the bar for extradition cases, with the aim of targeting other people.

If so it's a dumb move. The coalition agreement has a specific commitment to review the Extradition Act in the light of the McKinnon case. If the US were interested in lowering the bar for extradition, they'd be keeping very very quiet right about now. (Meanwhile McKinnon is still in the UK, five years since the US kicked up a fuss, so it's not as if the American hullaballoo has got them all that far.)

Re:Pointless

[Nadaka]

More importantly, why the hell is IMMIGRATION CONTROL doing trying to bring a "criminal" INTO the country?

Re:Pointless

[daedae]

TFA doesn't say where the server was hosted, except that explicitly wasn't in the US. My assumption though is that the domain registrar was based in the US, which is how ICE seized the domain.

Re:Pointless

[milkmage]

ICE = immigration and CUSTOMS enforcement.
http://www.ice.gov/about/overview/

http://www.ice.gov/cyber-crimes/

see bullet 6

- Possession, manufacture and distribution of images of child abuse;
- International money laundering and illegal cyber-banking;
- Illegal arms trafficking and illegal export of strategic/controlled commodities;-
- Drug trafficking, including trafficking in prohibited pharmaceuticals;
- General smuggling, including trafficking in stolen art and antiquities and violations of the Endangered Species Act;
- Intellectual property rights violations, including music and software;
- Immigration violations; and
- Identity and benefit fraud.

Re:Pointless

[elrous0]

But this time he said he's really changed.

Re:Pointless

[Fjandr]

The registrar doesn't have to be in the USA, since ICANN is based inside the USA. Aside from some foreign TLDs, they have the final say.

Jurisdiction

[Robadob]

Do they have any jurisdiction over this? It wasn't even hosted in the US.

Re:Jurisdiction

[bigstrat2003]

The US doesn't give two shits about jurisdiction, they care about sticking it to the kid.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Hatta]

Being the greatest, best country God has ever given man kind, US law is God's law, which recognizes no jurisdiction.

This is how American Exceptionalists really think.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they have any jurisdiction over this? It wasn't even hosted in the US.

Well, since both countries are signatories to the Berne Convention ... technically, by treaty the US is legally entitled to ask for the extradition.

Of course, if you were living in a country which said that linking didn't actually constitute copyright infringement, then the response would be "go away". If your country rules that linking is the same as infringement ... well, then you get extradited. So, depending on precedent in the UK, that's what will likely happen.

I think this pretty much demonstrates how copyright has become the big bogeyman that circumvents any sanity in law any more. It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Nick Ives]

Back when Tony Blair was in power he signed an extradition treaty with the US which means that if a DA files charges against someone, they can be extradited from the UK. Our Parliament ratified the treaty without inserting a reciprocal clause in the legislation making it dependant on your congress honouring the treaty.

Obviously your congress decided that having US citizens extradited just because a prosecutor in the UK fancied it them was mental, so they didn't ratify that clause. That leaves us with the current imbalance where your criminal justice system can essentially pull anyone out of the UK for any reason.

Re:Jurisdiction

[MickyTheIdiot]

Getting authorities to act sanely entails that they understand a *tiny* bit about how these systems work. They don't. By the admission of many legislators they are getting all their information from lobbyists... which means almost all their information has bias problems.

We've come a long way from the "creme rising to the top" and such in government. It's purely face-men listening totally to corporate interests. And anyone with true unbiased knowledge are simply "the other" now and their input is completely thrown away.

He could get a judge that isn't on the take and actually cares about the facts and the best outcome is that it becomes a VERY EXPENSIVE fiasco... what is one more very expensive fiasco, eh?

Re:Jurisdiction

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

All fall down?

http://letmewatchthis.com/ -- > http://www.letmewatchthis.ch/
http://adthe.net/
http://ch131.com/
http://valluc.org/
http://channelsurfing.net/

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was a British citizen (or "subject" or whatever you people call yourselves), this would piss me off like crazy. Like, I would shit myself with rage.

Since I'm an American, I just find it hilarious.

Re:Jurisdiction

[davester666]

And this also counts (if he is convicted) as strike one of the so-called 'three strikes' law in the US...

Re:Jurisdiction

[MickyTheIdiot]

I'm an American and I find this situation as well as almost every governmental figure from the last 8 years pathetic. Even the ones that were mostly good, like my Senator Richard Lugar, have been shit since the Newt Gingrich congress when everything officially went apeshit with partisan hate (ending in the most unnecessary impeachment trial in history). But even worse than the politicians are the general public who keep electing these idiot facemen time after time. We're in major trouble, kids!

Re:Jurisdiction

[Score Whore]

There is no "three strikes" law at the federal level in the US. There are multiple "three strikes" state level laws. But there are no state level copyright laws. So your post is kind of bs.

Re:Jurisdiction

[rs79]

The US controls every domain name on the planet. Don't kid yourselves.

For a "siezed" website, it seems to be pretty up: http://tvshack.bz/movies/M (beware of popups)

I had no idea this site existed. Hello Streisand effect!

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

The US ratified the treaty in 2006. So you guys can do the same.

Re:Jurisdiction

[spidercoz]

America!!!

FUCK YEAH!!!

Re:Jurisdiction

[Dorkmaster Flek]

I think this pretty much demonstrates how copyright has become the big bogeyman that circumvents any sanity in law any more. It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

I'm sorry, somewhat out of control?

Re:Jurisdiction

[blair1q]

I keep trying to explain this, especially in relation to Julian Assange.

You don't get a free pass to commit crimes against a nation's people or corporations or government just because you're not a citizen and not in that country when you do it.

Jurisdiction is about determining who gets to prosecute you, based on where you were and who you victimized and what you did and how the judicial systems want to organize it.

Also remember, the Berne convention is an international treaty, and it likely spells out the procedure for this, streamlining the justification for extradition.

Re:Jurisdiction

[UdoKeir]

Really? What's this? http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_stages/stages-sentencing/three-strikes-sentencing-laws.html

Re:Jurisdiction

[chrb]

Obviously your congress decided that having US citizens extradited just because a prosecutor in the UK fancied it them was mental, so they didn't ratify that clause.

No. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in 2006 - see Extradition Act 2003 (US ratification 2006).

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they do. Like all good empires, they don't give a damn about sovereignty, justice or what's right. Unless it's in their best interests, of course.

See the ICC, Geneva Convention, Iraq, UN - or the more recent events in Libya for reference.

Re:Jurisdiction

[retchdog]

that's for violent felonies. the context of "three strikes" above was for three strikes copyright laws as in france.

although afaic any law based on a sports analogy should be shitcanned immediately.

Re:Jurisdiction

[MattBD]

This legislation is already being used in an attempt to extradite the hacker Gary McKinnon, and it's generated a significant public outcry from that case alone. This one on top of that would just generate more publicity over this issue. BTW, citizen is the appropriate term - it used to be subject prior to 1949.

Re:Jurisdiction

[hedwards]

A lot of that would change if the states would change the districting and primary systems to be a bit more represenatative. Around here the party that holds a majority doesn't get to do the districting. Which means that boundaries over all tend to be relatively balanced. And since we have a top two primary with people being allowed to vote for whomever they wish in the primary regardless or party, we typically end up with districts where the election was effectively over after the primary, going on to the final election. So far the more moderate of the two candidates has won every single time that two candidates from the same party have faced each other.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Dunbal]

That was back when copyright infringement was a civil issue not a criminal one. AFAIK you don't get extradited for civil disputes.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Dunbal]

the Berne convention is an international treaty

Signed in the 19th century when copyright infringement was a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Re:Jurisdiction

[aeoo]

It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

What an understatement.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep trying to explain this, especially in relation to Julian Assange.

You don't get a free pass to commit crimes against a nation's people or corporations or government just because you're not a citizen and not in that country when you do it.

So you think the editors of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten should be extradited to an Arab country so that they can be beheaded for posting cartoons of Muhammad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Re:Jurisdiction

[Nick Ives]

Right, but that doesn't redress the imbalance around the fact that the treaty allows for the USA to remove people from the UK for things actions that occur in the UK but are illegal under US law.

To highlight how crazy this is, there's a case of a somone involved in a bribery scandal being extradited even though the alleged crimes occurred entirely between the UK and Nigeria, just because he worked for a firm owned by Haliburton!

Of course it's right that such crimes should be investigated, but things like that are illegal in the UK too. If our criminal justice system doesn't see fit to prosecute, why pull them out to the USA to do it?

Having said that, our police and prosecutors are clearly and obviously corrupt at the highest levels (evidenced by the fact that our Tory government employed a former newspaper editor from News International who has been implicated in a phone hacking scandal, and his former boss even accidentally admitted to parliament that her paper regularly bribes police officers for information) so maybe you're doing us a favour. This is about the principal though!

Re:Jurisdiction

[blair1q]

Updated continually since then and adopted by the United States in the late 1980s.

The distinction between civil and criminal law is variable, depending only on where the crafters of a law want to draw the line, if it is a line and not a jagged tear.

Re:Jurisdiction

[blair1q]

I don't think so, but if the Danish courts think so then it's a legal extradition and he can be tried and convicted.

I do believe Julian Assange should be extradited to the U.S. to stand trial for what he did. If the UK or Swedish courts agree, then it's a legal extradition and he can be tried and convicted and maybe even hanged.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Nick Ives]

Actually, subject was dropped in '82. It's still around in the form of British subjects without citizenship or citizen of Eire who applied to become subjects in '48.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Qzukk]

that's for violent felonies

He raised his voice, that makes it verbal assault, and assault is a violent crime.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

The "victim" is probably Sony BMG, or Paramount, or Disney, or other movie producers.
There is no "where", they have offices everywhere.
And by the way, downloading is NOT copyright infringment, UPLOADING is.

When you download, say, a long essay from a website, and read it, you don't know whether that
essay was written by the website owner, and uploaded there with permission.
Say the author of the essay is very upset, does he have to sue YOU, or the website?

Re:Jurisdiction

[Nick Ives]

OK. That's actually pretty good news, but the treaty as negotiated is still imbalanced as I've commented above.

Still, I guess I learned that now our prosecutors can pull people out of your country too! Our news didn't report that, you guys seeing sense and honouring your negotiated obligations doesn't sell papers you see.

In any case, the treaty we have with the USA isn't the worst of our extradition arrangements. In the European Union we have these things called European Arrest Warrants which mean national police forces can pull anyone out of any country. One guy was extradited to Poland for refusing to pay for his pudding in a cafe!

Re:Jurisdiction

[blair1q]

>downloading is NOT copyright infringment

Count how many copies have to be made when you download something.

Did you have the author's permission to do it? Say, by having paid him or his agent for that permission? No?

Whether you knew you did or didn't have the author's permission is a possible mitigation in court; maybe before then, if the cop or prosecutor believes you're an innocent dupe. Doesn't change the fact that you made one or more copies in order to read it. And if it was deliberate, it's against the law.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Sponge Bath]

With this kind of nonsense abuse going on, the rest of the world is saying "America! FUCK YOU!" How fun it is for me to reap the contempt sown by an out of control US agency front for out of control US corporations.

Re:Jurisdiction

[icebraining]

The US controls domains with other country TLDs?

Re:Jurisdiction

[Muros]

Of course, if you were living in a country which said that linking didn't actually constitute copyright infringement, then the response would be "go away". If your country rules that linking is the same as infringement ... well, then you get extradited.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Linking is providing a pointer to some data. Are journalists going to be held to this standard as well, or is it only for things that happen to be on a computer system?

Re:Jurisdiction

[Chaonici]

> I do believe Julian Assange should be extradited to the U.S. to stand trial for what he did.

Which US law did he break again?

Re:Jurisdiction

[paulo.casanova]

No but you cannot be convicted of a crime which is not a crime in the place you commit it... the US seem to disregard that fact all the time. Especially when copyright is involved!

Re:Jurisdiction

[martin-boundary]

Either way, the real anomaly is "queen" rather than "president". But I'm not British, so perhaps I don't understand ;-)

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I think you'll have to keep explaining it.

A "crime" is somewhat defined, don't you think, by the criminal code defined by a legistature operating on behalf of a nation of its citizens.

If some dingbat state passes what it calls a law regarding what it chooses to call a crime, then pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for it to apply to me. You get EXACTLY a free pass, up until your own legislature passes a treaty that specifically extends the external legislation to apply to your people.

Re:Jurisdiction

[blair1q]

I know I don't look like a Google query page, but you'd think fewer people would use me as one, as it rarely goes the way they expect it to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_37.html

  793(e) ought to do it. It's only worth 10 years, but if the spooks testify that anyone died from it, the sky's the limit (or rather, the rope hanging from the scaffold in the sky).

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

The British government doesn't give a shit about their citizens.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha... Ha... Informative? This kind of shit shouldn't surprise anyone.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

The berne conevntion deals with the whys and wherefores of the extradition process not about the crimes/misdemeanour's that warranted the extradition in the first place. Eg Its like your miranda rites, nothing to do with the crime, all about the arrest and subsequent beating/ questioning.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

The "he mad us look stupid...er" law. The US is not a nation of laws, it is a nation of lawyers. 37% of the house and 60% of the senate are lawyers.

Lawyers make a living bending the law to their own purposes.

'nuff said.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Dahamma]

"Crimes" against a nation's people? For *linking* to copyrighted content!?

Since (according to the Berne convention) copyrights are automatic, that means pretty much every website on the Internet is copyrighted. Which means every hyperlink to a page that you don't own is potential copyright infringement. I think it would be safe to say that under this definition, almost every website on the planet is now guilty of a crime.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

That's payback for colonial times ;)

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

http://quicksilverscreen.im is better... descriptions and every movie under the sun if you use the search/or google search is better. movie name site:quicksilverscreen.im

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Both cases wouldn't be legal if the accused is faced with the possibility of death sentence or torture. Even if the national courts would pass such a decision, either the EU court or the ECHR would have their say on the matter, eventually, despite Assange being a non-EU citizen.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Yalius]

The Britain doesn't have citizens. It has subjects.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

So by your logic, if one country makes a law that wearing hats is provocative behaviour and should be punished, someone else in another country wearing a hat is 'committing a crime against the nation's people or corporations or government' and should be extradited to that country.

Hope you're also fine with a country like China outlawing gross obesity next and starts asking for extradition of obese US citizens.

You're most likely a biased US citizen, who only cares about your own cultural values being upheld. This is exactly the type of attitude why having a US passport abroad starts becoming more of a burden than a benefit.

Re:Jurisdiction

[lothos]

some ccTLD domains, like .cc, are controlled by a US-based registry like Verisign. Which puts it under the reach of the US gov.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats ok,

I called the Saudi Arabian crime stoppers and let them know that your mother, sisters, and daughters have all consistently failed to wear veils, or burqas. They also insist upon driving. I suspect they shall be extradited post haste.

Do you see why you fail yet? Because some of us have been trying to explain this to your stupid thick headed ass for quite a while now.

Do you know why it will never happen? Because Saudi Arabian laws don't apply here. Now lets follow that through logically... Do you think American laws apply elsewhere?

Oh BTW I'm an American, and veteran. My opinion? Julian Assuange should be freed, Bradley Manning should be freed, and the charges against this college kid should be dropped. The way my government is currently acting at times makes me physically sick.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Foobar of Borg]

Hope you're also fine with a country like China outlawing gross obesity next and starts asking for extradition of obese US citizens.

Sounds fine to me. We need to get those fat fucks out of here. When they came for the obese, I said nothing, 'cause I hate those fat fuckers. They never came for me 'cause they had too much trouble getting those fat fucks in the cattle cars.

Re:Jurisdiction

[shentino]

ICANN is headquartered in the US, so they already have reach over everything.

Re:Jurisdiction

[rolfwind]

I didn't even know you could be extradited over a civil, not criminal matter.

Re:Jurisdiction

[KingMotley]

lol. Have a link to pudding story somewhere, I'd love to read it.

Re:Jurisdiction

[QuasiSteve]

I think they understand how these systems work just fine. The problem is that 'we, the people' like to think that the technical workings of things offers ways around the intent of laws in addition to getting around the letter of them.

e.g. if I get 1,000 individuals to upload 1,000 movies to 1,000 individual sites which don't have any particular public presence, then those 1,000 individuals are technically the ones breaking the laws.
The people behind those 1,000 sites may also be breaking the law (depending on (nation) state and internationally applicable conventions, they may be in direct violation of a copyright law or at least in violation of a copyright 'safe harbor' clause a la the DMCA).
Any of the, say, 1,000,000 who directly download from those locations - by having received one or more of those locations - may also be breaking the law (depending on the (nation) state in question).

But finding those 1,000 individuals takes a lot of time, and costs a fair amount of money, and there's no guarantee that even one of them is found.
Shutting down 1,000 sites takes a lot of time and costs a fair amount of money, and there's no guarantee that even one of them is actually shut down.
Finding and suing the 1,000,000 downloaders takes even more time, costs even more money, and there's no guarantee that even one of them is actually found/sued.

Not to mention the great public backlash against actions taken against downloaders; not so much when it's against uploaders, oddly enough.

But now imagine that those 1,000,000 downloaders got those 1,000 addresses from 1 site. One single site. Now they've got an easy target. Now they've got the site that, while not responsible for the uploads, not hosting them, and not exactly putting a gun to people's head and saying THOU SHALT DOWNLOADETH, can certainly be successfully argued to be facilitating copyright infringement in a significant way.

The facilitating argument is usually what's used in these cases, at least around Europe. Not sure how that is in the U.S., but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same were to apply there.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Smallpond]

There will be

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/Acta-talks-focus-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm

Re:Jurisdiction

[Ricwot]

It has both. Depending on where you're born, you're one or the other.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Sparx139]

I think it's a reference to this.

Re:Jurisdiction

[SkunkPussy]

ye I think the presumption should be that people are tried at home, because I don't really see how you can mount a great defence when you are a) away from your friends/family/normal support networks and b) tried in a country whose laws are all completely new to you. essentially non-essential extradition throws a fair trial to the wind.

Re:Jurisdiction

[dave420]

No, it has citizens.

Re:Jurisdiction

[dave420]

The leader is actually the Prime Minister, not the Queen. And loads of places have Prime Ministers, so it's not that strange.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Ecgtheow]

It has both, but mostly citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject#After_1983

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

I say, is that a link on Slashdot to copyrighted content? Call the FBI!

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, its still one sided, you see it works like this,

UK citizen wanted by an American prosecutor, can be extradited under mere suspicion

US citizen wanted by a British prosecutor, can only be extradited when evidence is shown that a crime has been committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

Sounds one sided to me..

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but you'll probably find that they don't count with anywhere near the same power since they're not owned by large corporations

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

which said that linking didn't actually constitute copyright infringement

Lets put this into real world terms.

Lets say I want to buy cocaine. I can talk to a guy who doesnt buy or sell the stuff. But just 'knows people' lots of people. Is he a drug dealer? It is called conspiracy to induce or something like that usually.

While what the kid did was what most people consider the equivalent of j-walking it is still wrong.

It is really just trying to subvert the very law by using a technicality of the law.

Some dude posting on some board where to get something probably no one would really care. But some dude who sets up a board for the express reason of telling people how to do something wrong. Not so much...

The real WTF is US has jurisdiction in the UK and the other way around? Didnt we like go to war so that sort of shit wouldnt go on? Like oh I dont know the revolutionary war and the war of 1812....

One of the reasons for copyright limits is to shut this sort of shit down. Fucking congressman are so damn bought. WTF....

Re:Jurisdiction

[lennier]

The US controls domains with other country TLDs?

They use Aircraft Carrier Deployment Protocol for that.

Re:Jurisdiction

[lennier]

I think this pretty much demonstrates how copyright has become the big bogeyman that circumvents any sanity in law any more. It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

Due to outsourcing of physical manufacturing, intellectual property is about all the USA has left to export. "Designed by Apple in California; made in China." So from an economic perspective, copyright is the most important thing going for the information-sellers of the world.

It's not a very good thing at all from the point of view of civil liberties, but liberty costs money and you are not the paying customer.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Nursie]

"The real WTF is US has jurisdiction in the UK and the other way around?"

Hey, it's just the latest facet of the Global Free Market (TM), which is the latest thing in corporate and celebrity law.

Want cheap labour? Take production overseas!
Want to maintain your profit margin? Have laws draw up to outlaw parallel imports!

This is just the latest thing, freedom to choose jurisdiction.
Someone says something bad you don't like? Take it to the UK libel courts!
Got a copyright related gripe? Have 'em hauled to the US!

Re:Jurisdiction

[Dahamma]

Perhaps, but you'll probably find that they don't count with anywhere near the same power since they're not owned by large corporations

No large corporations? With websites I can link? Really?

Great, see what you made me do? That's probably 15 years in prison for me, minimum.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not in a country, and not a citizen of a country in which what you're doing is a crime, then it's not. So in a way you're right - you don't get a free pass to do it because it is impossible to do.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Oligonicella]

Nope. That does *not* make it verbal assault. Read some more.

Re:Jurisdiction

[shutdown -p now]

British citizens call themselves "citizens". "Subject" remains on the books, but only as a very narrow category.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Jeremy Erwin]

We don't hang people in the United States. We play "doctor" with them.

Re:Jurisdiction

[dryeo]

You should read your constitution one day. Says something like Congress will make no law abridging freedom of speech, doesn't seem to have any exceptions either. So you're advocating hanging someone for practicing free speech.

Re:Jurisdiction

[mug funky]

nobody ever got extradited for jaywalking.

Re:Jurisdiction

[bug1]

So can i please get the CEO of Yuxing extradited from China (they sign Gerno convention) for violating the GPL upto 100 million times ?

Oh wait, extradition is only a tool governments use to assist in giving corporations power over individuals...

nm

Re:Jurisdiction

[bzipitidoo]

I am a US citizen, and this action angers and embarrasses me. I'm wondering what I can do about it. That's my tax money being wasted on this bull.

Call up the ICE to complain? No good. I should like to know who is behind this extradition. Could I get ICE to cough up some names? Unlikely. And yet, FOIA just might mean they have to spill. Scream at my representative, with a letter if not over the phone? Maybe. How about a public protest? Doubt anyone else cares enough about it to bother. What about the EFF and ACLU?

Hope this gets some attention, and makes the involved parties look very, very bad.

Re:Jurisdiction

[julesh]

Well, since both countries are signatories to the Berne Convention [wikipedia.org] ... technically, by treaty the US is legally entitled to ask for the extradition.

Could you point out to me where in the Berne Convention extradition to the country of origin is mentioned as a remedy. In fact, it's quite clear in the opposite direction: violations are to be prosecuted in the territory where the infringement took place, in this case (if any infringement did take place) that is the UK.

Re:Jurisdiction

[squizzar]

I used to live somewhere where there was a lot of drug dealing. So if I told you where that was do I get arrested for 'facilitating' the drug trade? What about if I put up a website with a list of areas known for dealing? Taking down a site like this does look like the simple solution, but at the end of the day it's all for show. Just like drugs if you bust the guys on the streets there are plenty more to take their place, the only solution to stopping it is to prevent the supply (or, for both sides of this analogy, to accept that people are going to do it, so find a way to legalize and take tax/profit from it). After all the demand is still out there, and so is the product. Someone will take on the job of putting the two together.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Hognoxious]

any law based on a sports analogy should be kicked into touch immediately

FTFY

Re:Jurisdiction

[julesh]

"Crimes" against a nation's people? For *linking* to copyrighted content!?

Since (according to the Berne convention) copyrights are automatic, that means pretty much every website on the Internet is copyrighted. Which means every hyperlink to a page that you don't own is potential copyright infringement. I think it would be safe to say that under this definition, almost every website on the planet is now guilty of a crime.

Generally speaking (there are exceptions) for something to be a crime you must be aware that you are doing it and that it is likely to have the effect that the law is intended to prevent [note that this is not the same as knowing the law exists]. In order to successfully prosecute somebody for criminal contributory copyright infringement (as this case would be) the prosecutor will have to prove that (1) the links were to infringing content, (2) the accused knew at the time of publishing them that they were to infringing content and (3) that they had (or the accused should have known that they were likely to have) the result of encouraging more people to infringe the copyrights in question. If you have such links on your web site, you will (by definition) know about them.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Hognoxious]

Funny that, it says "British citizen" on my passport.

Let me guess, you've never been there, couldn't point to it on a map, and you're probably fat too.

Re:Jurisdiction

[PhilHibbs]

Well, since both countries are signatories to the Berne Convention ... technically, by treaty the US is legally entitled to ask for the extradition.

Does the Berne convention support extradition for a civil offence? Or are they claiming that posting a URL is "circumvention of protection measures", which is now criminal under the EUCD?

Re:Jurisdiction

[MattBD]

The Queen has no powers other than ceremonial ones. She can in theory refuse to sign a bill into law, but I don't believe she has ever done so once it has been approved by Parliament. In practice, the Prime Minister actually runs the country. As the official head of state, the Queen is quite useful in terms of ceremonial duties - her and her entire family can be sent here and there to carry out all kinds of goodwill duties while the Prime Minister gets on with their work. And the royals do make a lucrative tourist attraction.

Re:Jurisdiction

[mcvos]

The US doesn't give two shits about jurisdiction

But the UK should. Is this even a criminal case in the UK? I doubt they can extradite him for a civil matter. And if it is a crime in the UK, and he committed the act in the UK, he should be tried there. The only reason for extradition is if the crime was committed in another country.

Re:Jurisdiction

[malkavian]

The problem of course being when someone with the industrial base (hard and time/money consuming to set up) decides to just in house all the IP stuff, and skirt international IP restrictions. That's when the house of cards falls over. Great idea? Cool.. Can't make it anywhere in large numbers.. If you do, you're guaranteed to have someone selling the exact same thing for a fraction of the price.
The IP heavy economy is a fragile thing. Betting the country on it is a real risk.
There again, in a 3 year business plan, it's not likely to be a factor, as the exec making those decisions will be reasonably safe that it'll not happen in the next 3 years.. So all's good in business land, yes? Nobody would ever dare outsource management!

Re:Jurisdiction

[malkavian]

I'm happy with either "Subject" (I happen to like the Monarchy) or a "Citizen". But yes, this extradition crap does bug the hell out of me. It was all set up by our previous Labour Government who really didn't give a rat's ass about privacy, rights (unless they were politically gainful to Labour) or anything like that. I've seen the biggest "Big Brother" intrusions and breakdown of personal rights I've come across in 40 years during their time.
I'm hoping that the new lot will have the balls to shut that side down, but it takes quite a few years.. So not holding my breath for the near future..
Can imagine you'd find it funny.. I would from the outside (it's one of those "It's so crazy someone must be making it up" stories)..

Re:Jurisdiction

[GauteL]

"I used to live somewhere where there was a lot of drug dealing. So if I told you where that was do I get arrested for 'facilitating' the drug trade?"

Places like The Pirate Bay and TV Shack not only tell people where to go, they provide direct links to exactly what you want so that no more user input are required to download the material. So the analogy is more like if you drove them to the place, and introduced them to the people to buy crack from and the guy to get heroin from. In this case you may well get arrested for facilitating. You may not have sold them any crack, but you DID act as a middle man and facilitator.

I'm not sure what I think about link-sites, but we really ought to get our analogies straight before discussing it.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Tim C]

I used to live somewhere where there was a lot of drug dealing. So if I told you where that was do I get arrested for 'facilitating' the drug trade?

If someone said to you "Hey man, know anywhere to score around here?" and you told them, then potentially yes. In reality not for doing it once, but if you became known as the go-to guy to introduce/direct people, then the law is likely to take a dim view of your activities even though you're not actually selling the drugs yourself.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Tim C]

If I was a British citizen (or "subject" or whatever you people call yourselves)

My passport says citizen.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Joce640k]

The US doesn't give two shits about jurisdiction, they care about sticking it to the kid.

"US" == "MAFIAA" ?

Re:Jurisdiction

[rohan972]

US law should apply to citizens of the US and visitors to the US. There is no reason a citizen of another country who is not in the US should be expected to act in the interest of the US, or keep US secrets.

We (Australia) shouldn't have rolled over when you kept David Hicks for five years without trial. We should extract Julian Assange from any country that agrees to send him to the US by any means necessary.

It won't happen but we should have our own nuclear weapons so we could break our military ties with the US.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of why we think the technical workings offer ways around the intent of laws is that the government and corporations also think that way. Copyright law was intended to be used against people copying works for profit, hence why there are massive penalties for it and why the penalties are per work rather than per copy. See also the Patriot Act for another law "intended" one way but used to make other things technically legal.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

your right the USA see's the globe as their jurisdiction. What I don't understand is how the UK would ever allow this kid to be extradited. I could MAYBE understand if this guy was hosting data but it was all externally hosted content. I mean certainly Yahoo!, Bing & Google will be next.....right?

Re:Jurisdiction

[jeremyp]

The Uk doesn't extradite people if there is any danger of the death penalty being applied. Of course, that doesn't stop the Americans saying "hey yes, we promise to only do him for the 10 year crime" and then changing their minds when they have got their hands on him.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. That's actually pretty good news,

Why is it good news that both our countries are insane?

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this pretty much demonstrates how copyright has become the big bogeyman that circumvents any sanity in law any more. It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

Does anyone even remember the "good old days" when copyright enfringement was a civil (i.e. not a criminal) offense?

After all, we are talking here about preserving "property" rights of corporations. I enclose that word in quotes because it is *imaginary* property, though the "owners" would like you to call it "intellectual property."

The kids growing up today will never know the difference. Their children *may* be able to read about it in history books, but probably not.
--
codk

Re:Jurisdiction

[jollyhockysticks]

So as I can find copyrighted content using google, so are they going to arrest the CEO of google? or the developers perhaps? Or me for finding it?

eg some search terms something like:

intitle:index-of+ mp3 + metallica

would likely yield some results, note this is NOT a direct link to content, I've not just turned /, into a link site. But out of the About 298,000 results, i reckon at least a few would be genuine.

I didn't check if i could actually download any of the resulting files as i'm not a pirate and for fear of being extradited to an apparently hostile country i've never been to with a 3rd world health care system and a REALLY fucked up legal system who think they are the world police, and its possible because apparently we in the UK have a 'special relationship' with you. Special as in SPECIAL NEEDS if you ask me.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing you posted anon because they would be holding you for violating the PATRIOT ACT by besmirching the government! But, I agree with you (so I am posting anon as well).

Re:Jurisdiction

[lxs]

Challenge accepted!

Re:Jurisdiction

[blair1q]

Are you really that ignorant?

You're free to speak. You're not free to break laws about keeping secrets secret. Established journalists get a pass if the information they release doesn't increase the danger (which is actually what that law up there says, so it's the fact that experienced journalists know the difference that gets them the pass). Assange is not an established journalist; that's why after the first release, made randomly without evaluations and redactions, he had to scramble to send the subsequent releases through the NY Times, who did the evaluations and redactions. The Times knows the law, understands the procedure, and knows what to release and what not to release.

Regardless, if Assange has rights they will be protected in a court of law, and there is no reason to prevent him from being tried.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the impeachment is merely about as unnecessary as the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Which is to say, both were pretty darn ludicrus.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this one is a copycat one, I know this to be true

Re:Jurisdiction

[sylphsama]

You sir make a pretty solid case, I'll admit. It certainly does make a lot of sense when you see this whole tomfoolery through that lens.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Britain"

You dumb fucker.

September 12

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nearly 3 months to relocate to a country without an extradition treaty. Easy.

Re:September 12

[Grishnakh]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's many decent countries that don't have extradition treaties with the USA. He could move to Zimbabwe, of course, but who the hell would want to live there? It'd be better to be in a crappy American prison than there.

There are countries, however, that are much stricter on who they'll extradite to the US, and for what crimes. Switzerland, I believe, is a good example of this. If they don't consider it a serious crime, they won't extradite. So they'll send you to America if you're a murderer or similar, but not if you're just a tax evader.

This kid should probably try to get asylum there, or in Sweden. The UK seems to be the USA's little bitch any time the US wants to extradite someone for something that's not even a crime in the UK.

Re:September 12

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, it's not even a crime here in the USA.

Re:September 12

[bigstrat2003]

I don't know if having a bunch of links would make it a crime (seems doubtful, but IANAL), but there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement so you aren't entirely correct.

Re:September 12

[sn00ker]

New Zealand's law on extradition requires that the extradition offence also be a crime under NZ and be punishable by a maximum sentence of at least one year in jail.

Since our copyright law restricts criminal infringement to "in the course of business" (ie: you're in the business of selling infringing copies), or "distribut[ing] otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner", he'd be safe here.
The penalty qualifies, but the actions would not be criminal under NZ law.

Re:September 12

[Kalriath]

At least until the next emergency session of parliament to address Christchurch earthquake recovery, anyway.

Re:September 12

[91degrees]

It looks like this was "in the course of business though". I had a look at the website, and it looks like the guy is making money of popup ads.

This is getting ridiculous!

[zero.kalvin]

Waiting for politicians to have some reason is not going to work, other means should be considered by the general populate.

Re:This is getting ridiculous!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was saying to my roommate last night that if people got as passionate about what their government was doing as they do about stupid sporting events, we'd have less of this. If people rioted and burned Washington DC to the ground to convey their contempt for our current government the message might finally get through.

Annnd now I'm probably on some FBI watchlist

Re:This is getting ridiculous!

[Joce640k]

I drew a Venn diagram and the intersection between "riot mentality" and "gives a crap about anything other than sports and beer" was very small.

Unfortunately.

Let me get this right

[MonsterTrimble]

So this guy is being extradited because he has a website which links to copyrighted content only? When did the rules change, because somebody should be talking to Google & Microsoft....

Re:Let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

Search engines automatically generate links. Provided that they respond to DMCA takedown requests (and they do), they aren't liable for it. Presumably the student in this case manually entered all the links, and probably ignored a few DMCAs as well.

Re:Let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

DMCA is an American law. Since when does a law in America have sway over someone who ISN'T AN AMERICAN?!

Re:Let me get this right

[Unkyjar]

Since when does a law in America have sway over someone who ISN'T AN AMERICAN?!

Since always. Otherwise foreign folks would have gone on killing sprees in America long ago.

I think you're looking more for "Since when does a law in American have sway over someone who isn't American or in the United States or its Territories?"

And to that question I'd probably say this type of stupid enforcement of law is the result of the buzzword "Globalization".

Re:Let me get this right

[Bogtha]

When did the rules change

On the 17th of August, 2000, when 2600 was barred from linking to DeCSS under the terms of the DMCA.

Given the peculiar characteristics of computer programs for circumventing encryption and other access control measures, the DMCA as applied to posting and linking here does not contravene the First Amendment.

(Emphasis mine.)

Re:Let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, the bankers - who swindled everyone and anyone with their toxic CDOs and various 'instruments', are yet to a) be held accountable and b) pay the money back to the taxpayer. I guess going after them would be too hard. Misplaced priorities? You betcha.

Re:Let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they? It's a lot more efficient to smack this kid down like a fly with a brick. Google & Microsoft are going to come to all future meetings about settlements and business partnerships knowing these guys have got a court-certified brick in their pocket.

This move has cut years off any ultimate court case against G & M, and may go a good ways to making it unnecessary. And put a chilling effect through all those annoying independent smart-asses.

This isn't about being "fair" in the eyes of a bunch of geeks, it's about winning. You've got to understand motivation here if you're going to have any social or political effect on changing this.

Hope the EFF sees an angle here. If they do, this'd be a good time to send them another donation.

Re:Let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

See DMCA Safe Harbor.

Re:Let me get this right

[witherstaff]

I miss copyleft and all the 'this is an illegal circumvention device' tshirts. I could do with a few new ones. When a tshirt place gets shut down because of the DMCA you know it's gone too far.

Re:Let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

And, that's what you call legislating from the bench. Can't get a constitutional amendment, just reinterpret! Good fucking thing we didn't have the DMCA before PGP

Re:Let me get this right

[Joce640k]

With all the money we spent on new yachts and mansions for bankers we could have bought the entire RIAA and turned it into a not-for-profit.

Win-win.

If we'd had our priorities straight.

YouTube, Google, Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

I got access to all copyrighted content via youtube, google and facebook, I wonder why thoses company(CEO) are not in jail, if this "crime" can send you in jail for 5 years.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[MickyTheIdiot]

They have better lobbyists than this guy. Duh.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[CohibaVancouver]

I wonder why thoses company(CEO) are not in jail, if this "crime" can send you in jail for 5 years.

Because they follow the 'rules' which, presumably, this kid didn't do. Namely, if they get a takedown notice, they take it down. Those are the rules the interweb lawyers have agreed upon. I would bet my mouse this kid got some notices, ignored them and then the law descended.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[91degrees]

Well, youtube, Google and Facebook do not exist for the sole purpose of activities that infringe copyright. They also take measures to ensure that the infringing material is blocked or that the copyright holders are recompensed for it.

TV shack exists purely to allow people access to copyright information without the copyright holder's permission.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wondered why/how blatant copyright infringement was allowed to exist on Youtube (and for years without getting taken down). Just to cite two examples: http://www.youtube.com/user/sbtech01 (The Apprentice UK, Season 4, 5, ...) http://www.youtube.com/user/Mantray0 (The Apprentice USA, Season 1, 2, ...) Those are actual uploaded episodes as opposed to linking. If anything, that Brit did them a favour by reducing the amount of time they'd need to find such content. What is this hypocritical approach to tackling copyright violation? Surely "a lead by example" is better, i.e. clean up Youtube and all other streaming clones (Megavideo, ...).

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[hedwards]

Take down notices only apply to hosts. This man wasn't hosting anything, just providing links to files that other people were hosting. It's an incredibly stretch to suggest that he's done anything criminal. It's morally grey, but legally, I can't imagine how he's responsible as the materials are still going to be accessible whether or not he links to them. Plus, you can find them via Google, Bing and others anyways.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[fnj]

What do you mean, he wasn't hosting anything? That is patently incorrect. He was hosting a webpage which contained links to material which was copyright. He wasn't directly hosting material which was copyright, but he was aiding and abetting the unauthorized publishing by the third party sites of material which was copyright. I guess if it was a few random links in a sea of unrelated links, most of them untainted (as is the case with Google), he wouldn't be in a pile of trouble. After all, he wasn't just helping people who asked him how to find certain specific files (like Google does), he was proactively telling them through his site.

Look, I take violent exception to the DMCA, too, but it's the law of the land. The DMCA is what specifically criminalizes this kind of marginal act. The courts can imagine responsibility where you may not, and they are guided by the law. In this case, a benighted, immoral law. But unless we can get it ruled unconstitutional, or repealed, we're stuck with it.

The US voters are responsible for putting into office the knaves who were responsible for doing the bidding of mega corporations by passing the DMCA.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[tepples]

Take down notices only apply to hosts. This man wasn't hosting anything, just providing links to files

That's not how I understand 17 USC 512. Subsection (c) applies to hosts, and (d) applies the same way to "information location tools". But being far less familiar with the (UK) Copyrights, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 as amended, I was unable to find the corresponding British statute if any.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[hedwards]

If you're going to be that literal, he had a website, it wasn't hosting any of those files. The DMCA takedown notices apply to services which are hosting files, not links. There were no files for him to take down.

And that's ignoring the fact that the DMCA doesn't apply outside the US, courts don't have legal jurisdiction over an alleged crime which happened over seas.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[hedwards]

You're misreading that. That section explicitly protects providers from being sued for other people's infringement. Meaning that providing the routing or other connections necessary doesn't subject one to liability unless one happens to fall into one of the particular categories. Which is why MS and Google aren't being sued, it's not their responsibility, they're in the clear so long as they don't do one of the specific prohibited things.

IANAL though.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

If he actively linked to content he knew was copyrighted, then that's quite different to, say, YouTube, whose infrastructure is being used by third parties to host copyrighted material. Material that, when reported, they actively take down.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[tepples]

providing the routing or other connections necessary doesn't subject one to liability unless one happens to fall into one of the particular categories

"Information location tools" are one of those categories, and to keep their safe harbor, they must respond to takedown notices sent to their registered copyright agents.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean, he wasn't hosting anything? That is patently incorrect. He was hosting a webpage which contained links to material which was copyright. He wasn't directly hosting material which was copyright, but he was aiding and abetting the unauthorized publishing by the third party sites of material which was copyright. I guess if it was a few random links in a sea of unrelated links, most of them untainted (as is the case with Google), he wouldn't be in a pile of trouble. After all, he wasn't just helping people who asked him how to find certain specific files (like Google does), he was proactively telling them through his site.

By your logic, If I post links on my website which point at Wikileaks then I am aiding and abetting espionage and treason against the United States (well, at least according to the US Government). In fact, just posting this link makes me liable to prosecution for these alleged crimes? Assuming, of course, I refuse to remove them from my website when asked.

Not so much, I think. And before you say it's not the same thing, think about it. Just replace the term 'material which was copyright' with 'secret government documents' in your statement. And so, by your logic, posting this: Wikileaks and refusing to remove it means that I should hang by the neck until I am dead, dead, dead for espionage and treason? Sigh!

Posting anonymously as I've moderated on this thread and, oh right, because I don't want to swing for it :)

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[Syberz]

These CEOs and companies you mention are rich, this kid is not.

That's why.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

I got access to all copyrighted content via youtube, google and facebook, I wonder why thoses company(CEO) are not in jail, if this "crime" can send you in jail for 5 years.

Not only this but google makes available porn to minors! I'm surprised someone hasn't tried this crap on them.

It comes down to something very simple . Rich man law and poor man law. Guess which one this tv links guy has.
Guess which one google has.

Land of the free - paradox?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it more and more funny that a country which is known as 'the land of the free' sues everything and everybody and think they can determine on a global level who can and cannot do certain things. There's those countries I hope to never have to visit...

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Grishnakh]

Ever read "1984"? Remember how the war department was the "Ministry of Peace", the propaganda department was the "Ministry of Truth", etc.? The USA's claim "land of the free" is the same. It's just propaganda, and it never was true. At least back in the old days, it was only the slaves and Indians who weren't free, but these days it's everyone who isn't super-rich and politically connected.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Grishnakh]

What's more disturbing is how all these other countries willingly act as its lapdog and follow its orders. Maybe if the UK and other places would grow a spine, everyone else could just sit back and laugh when the USA does stupid and ridiculous stuff like this.

I bet China won't be honoring any extradition requests for "crimes" like this.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[azzy]

What? The land of the free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy

Something must be done
About vengeance, a badge and a gun
'Cause I'll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
I was born to rage against 'em

Now action must be taken
We don't need the key
We'll break in

I've got no patience now
So sick of complacence now
I've got no patience now
So sick of complacence now
Sick of sick of sick of sick of sick of you
Time has come to pay

Yes I know my enemies
They are the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[ColdWetDog]

I bet China won't be honoring any extradition requests for "crimes" like this.

The implication here is you're better off in China? Think that one through carefully. Yes, this is a dipshit thing (at least on the face of it, perhaps he's using the website to coordinate a world wide viral pandemic ... ) but China routinely shoots people that run afoul of the law, routinely and pervasively uses political oppression and nepotism, routinely and pervasively ignores the rule of law. Not sure you picked the right country to run to.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Dunbal]

Britain has been pussy-whipped ever since Sterling stopped being the world's reserve currency (to be replaced by the US dollar) and their empire went south. They really have no choice but suck up to the guys in charge of the game at the moment. It's quite amazing that a country that once dominated the planet is now much worse off than a country that never really had an empire and has been destroyed several times (Germany).

The funny thing is that technology seems to speed things up - the US dollar is about to implode soon and then the guess is who will that leave in charge. How's your Mandarin?

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Dunbal]

And this is different from other super-powers in what way? Oh agreed that China is no saint. But they never claimed to be, unlike the US.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Sponge Bath]

The super rich and politically connected must have mod points today as you have been modded -1 Doubleplusungood

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Luckyo]

Well, in US they have department of defense which does little of anything other then plan offensives. So this is nothing new. Orwell probably took his inspiration there, as it was like this for decades.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Luckyo]

Are you telling me that police in US doesn't routinely shoot people who run afoul of the law? Really?

You're telling there's no political oppression of parties other then two major allowed ones? No nepotism? Doesn't ignore the rule of the law when it suits it, including and not limited to its own constitution?

We must be talking about two different United States of Americas. Even here on slashdot stories where cases of USA violating any and all of the above are routinely posted, to the outrage of the crowd.

What you SHOULD be talking about is that in China there are freedoms that aren't enshrined in laws, or that certain parts of the law are not enforced as they should be. That would be true. Blanket statement like yours condemns USA just as much if not more then China at the moment, especially with private prison system having successfully installed an utterly ridiculous police, court and sentencing system on which the rest of the Western world looks with derision at best.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[c0lo]

I find it more and more funny that a country which is known as 'the land of the free' sues everything and everybody ...

"The land of the free" is the world's leading jailer. So successful that the "jailing industry" needs now to rely on "imports"?

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Anonymous Coward]

ref doubleplusungood unword rectify

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Grishnakh]

Britain has been pussy-whipped ever since Sterling stopped being the world's reserve currency (to be replaced by the US dollar) and their empire went south. They really have no choice but suck up to the guys in charge of the game at the moment. It's quite amazing that a country that once dominated the planet is now much worse off than a country that never really had an empire and has been destroyed several times (Germany).

What I don't really get is why Britain sucks up to the US the way it does, instead of just doing their own thing. Unlike Canada (whose major trading partner, by far, is the USA; we buy most of their exports), I didn't think the UK was very dependent on the USA for anything (except maybe saving their butt every time they start a war, but that hasn't been for 60+ years now; maybe they finally learned their lesson).

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Grishnakh]

Yep, I'd prefer it the Department of Defense would stop messing with offensives in other countries, and concentrate on defending the southern border from Mexicans who keep setting wildfires here in southern AZ to protect their smuggling routes. Instead, Obama keeps the mideast wars going, but sends a handful of national guardsmen to the AZ border armed with binoculars, and Incompetanto calls the border "secure".

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Culture20]

Are you telling me that police in US doesn't routinely shoot people who run afoul of the law?

"routinely" is a strong modifier. We'll often hear about the exceptional cases in the news. The prison companies wouldn't like it if the police regularly killed people.

You're telling there's no political oppression of parties other then two major allowed ones?

Maybe Communism, but other than that, even the Nazis get to have their parades and rallies.

No nepotism?

No comment.

Doesn't ignore the rule of the law when it suits it, including and not limited to its own constitution?

Don't judge us by the sitting president.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Luckyo]

Are you telling me that police in US doesn't routinely shoot people who run afoul of the law?

"routinely" is a strong modifier. We'll often hear about the exceptional cases in the news. The prison companies wouldn't like it if the police regularly killed people.

We hear about exceptional cases where people who are bystanders/police hitting the wrong apartment/babies get shot. The cases where the criminal himself gets shot are a whole other matter.

You're telling there's no political oppression of parties other then two major allowed ones?

Maybe Communism, but other than that, even the Nazis get to have their parades and rallies.

Not talking about laughable things, but real oppression on actually being meaningful, such as blocking from attending certain press conferences/debates, denying permits to demonstrate in visible places, getting a real chance to get elected, and so on.

Doesn't ignore the rule of the law when it suits it, including and not limited to its own constitution?

Don't judge us by the sitting president.

Just one president and no presidents before him? Just the president and no one in... say, policing agencies? Really?

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[sqrt(2)]

That's a terrible solution. I don't want a militarized border a few miles South of me. I'd rather we remove the economic incentive to smuggle drugs into the US by making them legal to produce and distribute here in a safe, affordable, and regulated manner. If they are going to be sold and used anyway (and they are, you can't stop it), it might as well be done safely and in the open where it can be monitored and regulated--and taxed appropriately.

Anything else is jingoistic madness, usually with a dash of racism.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[DeathElk]

Hell yeah! (grabs remote)

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[dryeo]

Unluckily Canada now has a pro-American government with a majority. They've already illegally extradited someone for political reasons to the States, have been caught admitting to the American ambassador that they can't pass the copyright law the Americans requested because it would make them unelectable (before the election) and have many plans to kowtow to the Americans and follow their lead into the abyss.
Being a majority government in a system where the party always votes as a block it is basically a dictatorship for 5 years.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Grishnakh]

How about both? Legalizing pot will definitely help, but it won't stop the problem overnight.

And how the hell is it "racist" to want to defend a border against violent invaders?

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[sqrt(2)]

Because "defending the border" is almost always code for stricter and harsher treatment of undocumented immigrants, that's the real motive. Xenophobia might be more accurate than racism, although they aren't mutually exclusive. Our current immigration laws are terrible and favor the capitalist ruling class by allowing their money to freely cross all international borders while restricting the movement of labor, keeping desperate and needy people locked to their place of birth so that they can be exploited more easily. If I can take my money and set up a factory in Mexico, a Mexican should be allowed to take his labor and sell it in the US, when you have one without the other you have an unfair system.

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use all money needed to cover the costs associated with extraditing the student and the trial and prison costs to instead pay your corporate overlords? I mean, we all know you're their lackeys so there's no need to keep up the silly pretense.

Linking == Copyright Violation?

[ZipK]

If this Slashdot article points to an Inquirer article that points to a website that points to videos, isn't Slashdot some fraction as guilty as the website owner? What is the decay rate for guiltiness-per-level-of-indirection?

Re:Linking == Copyright Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets test and see.
Direct download for movie file
Link Directly to .torrent
Link to page linking to torrent
google search for the torrent
There now we wait and see how many of those /. is prosecuted for and then we'll know.

Re:Linking == Copyright Violation?

[DaHat]

Kids today... not knowing the implications of the MPAA v 2600 case over the DeCSS source code.

God I feel old... and I only turn 31 next month :(

Re:Linking == Copyright Violation?

[blair1q]

Fair use of fair use of fair use of fair use of pirated content.

Re:Linking == Copyright Violation?

[Twinbee]

There is a decay rate you speak of, whatever it is - you can bet on it.

Re:Linking == Copyright Violation?

[91degrees]

If I knowingly give you the tools to give to someone else to help them facilitate a crime, then I'm an accessory. If I give you some tools that you then go and use to commit a crime then I'm not guilty.

There's no decay rate here. Slashdot and The Inquirer are innocent because it is clearly demonstrably concerned with reporting technology news and this is clearly a key aspect of the technology news. TV shack existed to show TV shows that the creator knew (or should have known) he had no rights to show.

Extradite me :)

[Cito]

http://icefilms.info/

http://www2.re1ease.net.in/

http://www.anivoid.com/home/

I will await my subpoena

Re:Extradite me :)

[MickyTheIdiot]

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.0/testing/linux-3.0-rc3.tar.bz2

Linux is copyrighted!!!

Re:Extradite me :)

[Verteiron]

AND you linked to it before the final version is officially released, which I believe earns you 20 years in the electric chair!

How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Rijnzael]

I like using rlslog.net to conveniently find torrents. They host no copyrighted content whatsoever, only link to sites which link to torrents which in a sense link to a swarm of people who have parts of the file of interest.

I imagine that, just following random links on the internet from nearly any given site, I could eventually get to the site I mentioned above. How many links is enough degrees of separation? Surely if liability is introduced simply by linking to a website, you are liable for anything sites you link to also link to. I wonder how many government sites link to Google as their site search provider? Google can get you anywhere, so surely the government would in those cases be liable for linking to Google which links to torrent sites. And that's why this idea is completely absurd.

And how the hell is what this kid did worthy of extradition, or even a felony in the US? Our copyright policy is so ridiculous.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many? Thousands.

I thought rlslog.net was mainly for links to the files hosted on fileserve, filesonic, megaupload, rapidshare etc. The website generates ad revenue. Perhaps the intent should be considered, not some bullshit disclaimer about the site helping you backup content you already own, or technicalities about what hyperlinks could do.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[blair1q]

Aiding and abetting isn't illegal where you are?

When you figure out that it isn't, tell Tommy Chong's lawyers he shouldn't be in jail for selling bongs. Not for selling dope to put in bongs. Just bongs.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Sponge Bath]

More specifically, Tommy Chong was jailed for selling bongs to Pennsylvania cops who repeatedly tried to purchase them even though Chong Glass refused each time because it is illegal in Pennsylvania. After placing a large order under a false name for pickup (where it was legal), the cops refused to pick up the material and had them ship it to get payment.

All of this circus was done for political reasons by Mary Beth Buchanan with a wink and a nod from John Ashcroft.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there has to be intent and conspiracy?

Designing a car which is used in a getaway isn't aiding and abetting. There are specific rules that apply to the legal responsibility here.

IANAL. But my wife IAL, and she's laughing at you! And at me, for responding to trolls on slashdot...

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[fnj]

Methinks he is wishful thinking and rationalizing. He should be enraged at the DMCA.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you put all CEOs of small arms manufacturers in jail as well for aiding and abetting to murder and crimes against humanity.

Stop imposing your values on others.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Em Adespoton]

I think what these arguments are missing, which is what is often missing, is the area of intent. For example, Slashdot links to all sorts of "illegal" material -- but the site is a news site, not a site that is dedicated to indexing copyright infringed works.

What this guy could have done was make his site a discussion site with TV schedules etc. that just happened to also have an area showing examples of where this content was available online. If these links were not the primary goal of the site, but only a result of other user's activity on the site (and not ad supported), he likely wouldn't be under the extradition cloud.

US courts don't really care that much about what crimes you facilitate; they care about what crimes you premeditatively facilitate. They also care if someone cries foul and appears to have a case, yet you ignore them and don't take reasonable steps to make things better.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Rijnzael]

I think using intent as a basis for this judgment is a slippery slope, though. My counterargument is, for instance, having a website which links to videos of people committing vandalism. Regardless of whether it's a site by some graffiti artist who admires the content they're linking to, or some "get off my lawn type" documenting crimes being committed, it should be allowed either way, even if it could be construed as supporting something illegal.

What if the site name was different, say, "scumbagcopyrightinfringingwebsites.net", from someone who works in the movie industry and wants to generate a public list of sites of copyright infringers for his employer to take down (unlikely, I know, but an example nonetheless)? The intent is wildly different, but the end is the same--someone could use it to find streams or what have you of shows they want to watch or songs they want to listen to.

What if the site just blindly compiles video results from the Google Custom Search API allowing people unfamiliar with Google hacks to find TV shows? Different intent, but no attempt to limit those who obviously intend to use it for copyright infringement. Should a site like this have to take into consideration the copyright holders?

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

and not ad supported

I just love when they try to make it seem as if these websites are making money off of copyrighted content. They're making money because they host ads, and because people visit their website. What they host on said website and what the people intend to do on the website is a completely different matter (because they aren't getting paid to host copyrighted content or even making money from it).

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Genuine question: what is so compelling about these TV shows / movies / music that you take the risk of prosecution just to watch them?

Is it the thrill of the forbidden?

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[twidarkling]

I can't speak for all, but for me, I have a limit to my budget. This caused me to valuate different items different amounts. I placed having Internet access higher than cable television access. Unfortunately, the majority of television shows have not seen fit to have the ability to watch ad-supported online versions of their shows available in my country (Canada). I formerly purchased DVD sets of seasons of shows I enjoyed, but quickly caught up on most of them/the show ended. In order to find new shows worth purchasing, normally I'd watch it for free for a few episodes on TV. But I don't have that. So I'd download the shows, watch a couple episodes, then decide if it's worth purchasing. Recently, Netflix became available for streaming, so I signed up for that. It's not ideal, since it doesn't carry everything that the US version does, which still doesn't carry everything I'm interested in, but it was a good step, and it's severely curtailed my downloading of shows since there's still a decent wealth of content on there.

Possibly more unfortunately for the companies involved, however, I'm less likely to purchase DVDs now of anything on Netflix, since the ability to watch it whenever I want is the main motivation, followed by special features. Unfortunately, special features are rarely worth the $50 for TV shows, or $30 for Blu-ray movies compared to $8/month.

Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

What is next? Extradition for violating software patents?

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just one of those idiots that would have any crime punishable by beheading, because there's no such thing as proportion.

Well of course. Crimes are committed by criminals, who all deserve to get shot. But beheading will do if we're short of bullets.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely - we should arrest anyone who puts a copy machine in a public library.

Importing criminals

[siga]

I guess US does not have enough citizens in jails , so they need to import now . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

Re:Importing criminals

[MickyTheIdiot]

The CEOs of the for-profit jail systems need a new Jag...

Re:Importing criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy statistics. We clearly need more capital punishment to reduce those numbers.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a gross generalization is not only wrong, but I'm not even sure how you could have concluded it based on what I said, above... if copyright infringement is a bad thing, then I can see absolutely no reason that deliberately setting up vectors by which others might commit it should not be considered equally bad.

Again... key word here... deliberately. This may or may not be possible to prove in court if it came to that... but just because it is not always possible to prove that does not mean that it is never plainly obvious to everybody whether or not something was deliberate.

Re:Fuck this thief

[Shikaku]

You are implying I even LISTEN or WATCH to ANY of your RIAA/MPAA crap you've shit out in the past 10 years.

Hint: I haven't. Does that make me a criminal?

Who is paying for accomodation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wandering why ppl from other countries going to be accommodated using US tax money?

Re:Who is paying for accomodation?

[Dunbal]

Yes it's obvious from your post that said tax money should have been allocated to education. Ahh priorities in the land of the free.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[91degrees]

They don't do so in order to deliberately encourage unlawful copyright infringement.

Dammit Slashdot! Please understand the concept of INTENT when it comes to law. It's really pretty damn important!

Extraterritoriality

[skywire]

All your base are belong to U.S.

Re:Extraterritoriality

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. didn't take anything away from Great Britain; Great Britain gave it away. And, got something in return.

Google?

[gubers33]

Just saying if you Google "Watch movies free" and if returns the links for sites that allow you to stream movies for free, isn't this the SAME exact information being provided? If so Google could be prosecuted...however I doubt RIAA would like to go up against someone with a legal arm and financial backing.

Re:Google?

[xyourfacekillerx]

Of course that's not the same. Google does not intentionally profit from its automated link generation. This kid had intent, and his crimes (if there were any) were not accidental results of otherwise legal activities.

Not saying he committed a crime, just saying your comparison isnt quite right.

Re:Google?

[gubers33]

Does Google not profit from advertising just like the kid did?

Totally.

[dcollins]

Fucking. Insane.

Government=Cream?

[AliasMarlowe]

We've come a long way from the "creme rising to the top" and such in government.

Are you familiar with the septic tank paradigm for government (and politics in general)?
The biggest shits always rise to the top...

Re:Government=Cream?

[Sponge Bath]

Creme is always rich and thick.

Re:Government=Cream?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prince, or something, made a song about the government once..

An idea forms

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that cybercrime is apparently quite affordable (see a bit further down the front page). Could we get a fund together to cause some destruction to the crooks attempting the extradition? I'm thinking deletion of their supposed evidence, sabotage of their internal network, that sort of thing. Just a thought.

In America

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to hate all the American's who acted like America ruled the entire world.

Then I found out they were right.

As a US Citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this appaling. Not much I can really do though, except write my congresswoman, which I've done before. She sends back a nice little form e-mail. It probably goes to the bit bucket; but other than turning myself into some kind of activicst, I don't know what else to do.

Re:As a US Citizen

[BlueStrat]

As a US Citizen (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16, @06:02PM (#36468696)

I find this appaling. Not much I can really do though, except write my congresswoman, which I've done before. She sends back a nice little form e-mail. It probably goes to the bit bucket; but other than turning myself into some kind of activicst, I don't know what else to do.

As another US citizen who isn't too lazy to get off his ass to save his own ass (and others' asses, collectively, along the way), please immigrate. You don't even deserve the liberty you have. Unless you're crippled/disabled or have some other equally-dire and involuntary inability to fulfill your duties as a citizen, you're just getting in the way and taking up the resources of people trying to make things better. Apathy like yours is the main reason things have gotten this bad.

Citizens have duties as well as rights, and one of them is to actually get off your ass and take whatever steps (preferably/hopefully non-violent) that are necessary to insure the government doesn't become (even more) oppressive.

If you can't see the advantage of enduring the inconvenience of a few hours at a rally/march/protest now in order to be free of, possibly, a short life and violent death in some government camp later, then you seriously don't belong here.

Strat

The State of Things!

[Anonymous Coward]

Some Perspective...

So presently, we the US, have the ATF selling firearms to Mexican cartels furthuring violence along the southern US border, Ethics violations of sitting US Congressman such that their only recourse is to resign, are engaged in 2.3 foreign wars (we DO lob stuff at/into Libya...), probable economic stagnation in the job sectors and housing markets, increasing imbalance between median US household income and record Corporate profit, massive shortage of US Scientists and Engineers, are in desperate need of Immigration Reform, heading towards a singularity with Patents and IP requiring either reform or dissolution, endless bickering on the Federal Budget and what direction the US should take lest it get left behind technologically within the next decade ........

And what is the DOJ doing during all this? Shilling for the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY OVER FUCKING MOVIE links posted to a foreign website by a NON-US citizen, asking for EXTRADITION!

Someone please tell me this is a sick dream!

Re:The State of Things!

[Dunbal]

Someone please tell me this is a sick dream!

No, it's the end of an empire. Keep watching the games, the barbarians are very nearly at the gates.

Ahhh dammit

[mistralol]

I guess he forgot to use nofollow

Re:It's the JEWS, stupid...

[blair1q]

I think I speak for all Jews when I say fuck you.

In fact, I'm certain of it. Even though I'm not a Jew.

I will willingly pay money to this kids defence

[Anonymous Coward]

fund if he needs it. I have also asked my MP to raise the matter in parliament. Do the same, or soon it wont be the admins of these sites be shipped of to PMITA penitentiary it will be the users

URL

[antdude]

http://tvshack.bz/ still works. :P

and the three strikes law lead to mass overcrowdin

[Joe_Dragon]

Right now the CA prison system is so bad that by law they may be forced to let people out.

Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

All your citizens are belong to us! King George III should have put us down when he had the chance.

On that note, I'd like to say there are some of us who actually respect the sovereignty of other countries... I feel like we're in the minority though.

Am I the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who thinks the "I was only linking to a torrent, not hosting any copyright material myself" bullshit is wearing thin?

Re:Am I the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:Am I the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. . , yes. A lot.

Re:Am I the only one...

[91degrees]

No. I agree with you. There many things wrong with this, but the fact that he's not actually hosting the infringing material himself and only making a profit from facilitating isn't one of them.

Damnit America

[Stregano]

Deal with your problems and stop trying to deal with other countries problems. You guys have poverty and unemployment rates through the roof, but you are wasting federal resources to try and get some young kid over there to prosecute him. Just an example, last night I was bored and found an Obama interview where he was asked about making Medical Marijuana a Federal Law so that the Feds can stop doing what they do. He said he supported it, but had much bigger issues to use federal resources on. Apparently one of those bigger issues is shipping kids here from the UK who pirate stuff. Seriously America, let us handle our own people breaking laws. We have it taken care of. You don't need to ship our boy over there to punish him when we can do that just fine.

Re:Damnit America

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama was unaware of what you wanted to hear.
You have corrected this discrepancy.
You will soon hear what you want to hear.

Don't believe it.
Sincerely,
The United States

Re:Damnit America

[simmonsjeffreya]

While I do not agree with this crap, and it's basically terrorism in my books, minus the "violence" aspect of it. Though I guess you could argue that putting someone who committed this "crime" with violent murderers and rapists will ultimately result in violence against that person. Anyways, getting that out of the way, this IS in fact dealing with our problems. The U.S. is going down the drains. Everything used to say "Made in U.S.A." on it, now it's all "Made in ." Music/Movies/TV/etc are now are major exports. They are simply protecting profits from those exports. Do I, as an American, agree? Hell, no. Can I somewhat understand the logic behind this? Yes, I can.

Re:Damnit America

[simmonsjeffreya]

our*... really need to pay more attention when previewing. Also, to clarify on the whole "made in" thing, just saying we no longer export products, just crappy tv/movies.

Re:Damnit America

[Anonymous Coward]

We have it taken care of. You don't need to ship our boy over there to punish him when we can do that just fine.

How about instead of raging like a helpless victim... you just don't ship him over? That will be easy with a government that's got everything taken care of, right?

While we're at it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, recommend http://www.quicksilverscreen.im/ for all your video streaming needs.

I would be willing to watch ads or pay for the content I like (I'm paying for Spotify subscription for my music streaming needs) but such options simply aren't available for TV Shows where I live. For example, only one channel is showing Game of Thrones. To watch the show I would need to buy a TV, then pay a monthly fee for a channel that I wouldn't otherwise be interested in and even then... the episodes here are airing three months after they air in USA so discussing the latest twists online, etc. simply wouldn't be possible.

Hell, a legal way to watch the shows I want wouldn't even need to be cheap. If it cost 10 euros a month per tv show subscription or 50 euros a month for free access or something like that, I would still pay that... But I guess that the industry is too busy trying to sue people like me to actually develop such services.

Re:While we're at it...

[billcopc]

You're bang on the money, and this is what the industry doesn't get. As a different example, I've spent more money on Steam in the past year, than I had on boxed games in the ten years prior. Why ? Because they give me what I want, how I want it, where I want it.

I can count on one hand the number of hours I spend watching TV shows every week, the wife maybe twice as many. Our cable TV bill was close to $300 a month. So, 5 bucks an hour for TV shows seems a bit much, but this is how the cableco designed it, as each show is on a different channel, in a different bundle, and it actually worked out cheaper to get the "everything" package than to cherry-pick the proper bundles. We decided this was not worth the money, so we canceled it. Now I just download those same shows off the net and pay nothing. Actually, even when we had cable, I still downloaded a lot of the shows because it was easier and more convenient than programming the DVR, and there is nothing more irritating than a super loud tampon ad jammed right after a tense scene.

Torrent sites and Usenet are great, but they're inconvenient. If the media industry could figure out a way to deliver the content at high download speeds, easily automated, and no DRM, I would happily pay maybe a dollar per hour of programming. Yeah, a dollar. If it's only streamed then 50 cents per hour. It has to be better than torrents, which means streaming + downloading (no time-restricted DRM bullshit), subscription so I don't have to go searching for new episodes every week, all past episodes available indefinitely, no ads, no fakes, no nonsense. For the estimated 60 hours we watch, that's $60 per month. For the time I spend hunting out torrents, checking release sites, and administering my seedbox, $60 would be money well spent. Those who are too cheap to pay the buck can and will continue to seek out torrents, but some of us have better things to do.

To look at it from the distributor's side, I'll take an example show that I watch: Conan. Four nights a week, one hour shows. That's 16 hours per month (roughly). Times 1.3 million viewers, would bring in 1.3 million dollars per episode. Assuming his ratings don't improve, it's still well over $200 million per year. Even if they split this 50/50 with the distribution company, I'd still hazard a guess that it's significantly more than they're currently earning. Not too bad for a geeky late night talk show, don't you think ? Guys like Letterman and *cringe* Leno bring in three to four times as many viewers. If that's not profitable, someone needs to shoot the accountants.

Re:While we're at it...

[Robadob]

You say this but steam itself is DRM, it may be unintrusive (Depending on your view), but you can't run the games outside of steam (Without cracks). I personally like it because it gives me the automated ease to keep my games neatly (instead of downloading them off some other site). However given that watching videos is largely a different situation and creators of these medias love and rely on their DRM you would need to have an unintrusive drm that also allows the watching of videos on other devices/tvs. I can't really picture a perfect solution, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that its very unlikely DRM will just be dropped with any form of digital media.

Re:While we're at it...

[billcopc]

It is unintrusive, because I don't notice it. I fire up a Steam game, it works. I can't say the same for several titles I've purchased via retail, where the game disc installed a toxic cocktail of rootkit-style kernel drivers, or barked about the presence of Daemon Tools. Most of the time, I had to go hunt down a crack anyway, just to get the DRM to shut up and let me enjoy the products I've legally bought and paid for.

I don't see the video industry any differently. In the end, the consumers get what they want, and it's up to the providers to bend over backwards to accomodate them.

ahemmbullshitmm

[Anonymous Coward]

BULLSHIT http://bullshit.com/

http://www.bullshit.com/

http://bullshit.org/

http://www.bullshit.org/

http://bullshit.edu/

http://www.bullshit.edu/

Sure to have missed some.. MF Lawyers' exploitations NO wonder the world hates the US. Don't put your Damned terrible movies on the internet if you don't want people linking to them.. This is the internet you stupid greased monkeys lawyer ass kissing trolls. Go steal from your own selves-scumbag mother fuckers.

and russian pies get deported freely

[cheekyboy]

So link to tv shows and go to jail. become an agent undercover spy for russian govt in the usa, and you dont even go to jail, but get deported.

Nice morals USA.

All russian spies can breath a sigh of relief. For they will never go to jail.

Re:and russian pies get deported freely

[KingMotley]

Extradition doesn't mean jail. It means you are brought in front of a court to hear the case against you. He could be found innocent, or found the law doesn't apply to him, or if found guilty, could be a fine, probation, restricted from hosting a webserver for a period of time, having to write I'm sorry 100 times, instant time served, OR jail time (or a combination I guess).

Won't know until the case has been tried. Nice jumping to conclusions.

Re:and russian pies get deported freely

[SkunkPussy]

sucks really because you have about one tenth the chance of defending yourself while remanded in a foreign prison than if you are tried in your own country

Re:and russian pies get deported freely

[KingMotley]

I guess that depends on what country you are in, and what country you are being charged in. I doubt there is enough cases that get extradition to make that kind of judgement.

Re:and russian pies get deported freely

[chaos.squirrel]

restricted from hosting a webserver for a period of time

Which may be a bit difficult to enforce once he returns to britain -- unless they're planning on keeping him in the US for this period of time.

And seriously, extraditing someone for something that will probably end up with them getting fined is just nuts. Having said that, I must admit that I haven't really been keeping up with the sanctions given out for copyright stuff in the states.

Re:and russian pies get deported freely

[thej1nx]

Well to be fair, it is not like homicidal CIA american spies usually go to jail either.

Re:and russian pies get deported freely

[Opportunist]

But they are the good guys, and everything the good guys do is good.

Copyright infringing makes you a baaaaaaad guy though, and they have to be punished with the most severe punishments we could think of. Off with their head, so they learn!

Re:and russian pies get deported freely

[eiapoce]

Extradition doesn't mean jail. [...]

Won't know until the case has been tried. Nice jumping to conclusions.

Extradition in civilized countries is for already known criminals... and it means loss of freedom, so fuck the innocent until proven guilty principle. I hope people with a limited grasp of basic human rights like you get extradited to China or Iran. Those are the places that generally apply as much human rights to their people as the USA reserve for those infringing copyrights. Fortunately there you won't even have to pay a arm and leg for the lawyers!

Re:and russian pies get deported freely

[lxs]

Nothing to do with morals.
When Putin has your back you have leverage. When a million pasty teens have your back you're fucked. Sad but true.

Re:and russian pies get deported freely

[KingMotley]

Extradition in civilized countries is for already known criminals... and it means loss of freedom, so fuck the innocent until proven guilty principle.

First, dictionary definition of "Extradition": The official process whereby one nation or state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal to another nation or state. So you are wrong on that. It's the normal process when one person is being charged in a crime, is summoned to court to appear, and then refuses to show, trying to hide in another country.

I hope people with a limited grasp of basic human rights like you get extradited to China or Iran.

You would be better off if you spent your time learning about topics rather than trying to insult others just because they understand things better than you. It must suck to run around your whole life so bitter at every one else.

Those are the places that generally apply as much human rights to their people as the USA reserve for those infringing copyrights.

Human rights for infringing copyrights? Your perception of reality is pretty skewed. The vast vast majority (99.99%+) of all copyright claims result in a fine. Most people don't consider a fine to fall under the category of "human rights" abuse.

Fortunately there you won't even have to pay a arm and leg for the lawyers!

Defense lawyers are free in the United States if you can not afford (or want one) of your own choosing. In many cases, you can also get a lawyer of your own choosing as well (even as a plaintiff) and they will get their fees from the court in a counter suit.

OMFG, what BS

[lexsird]

This is a blaring indictment of how corporations run things. This copyright crap is just about corporate strings controlling our government. Where is the rage?

I can remember back in the day when the Internet first started how when it was first used for making money how angry the users were against it. It was suppose to be a landscape of pure thought, ideas to be shared for the edification of us all. Bzzzt. That didn't work out. Now its been raped by corporations, if some kid puts up a website that they think they can squeeze a dime out of they burn him. What is sickening is how our pathetic lapdog piece of shit politicians hand over the keys of power to them. We then have a massive industry of enforcement and punishment. We have so many fucking people in jail now its fucking insane.

Lets dissect all these fucking laws of ours that put people in jail to protect corporate interests. Next we need to consider that our retarded crooked cunt of a Supreme Court has decided in their fucked in the head reasoning that corporations are now "people" and have rights. Holy fucking shit people! How far does a cock have to jam up our asses before we realize how raped we are? How come they aren't paying taxes like a normal person then? Oh, that is right, they buy politicians to give us a tax code that stacks taller than a person.

The one big lesson that we have collectively forgotten like a bunch of retards is this: When it happens to the least of us, it happens to all of us. When we let these fuckers in charge get away with fucking ONE OF US, then ALL of our liberties are in jeopardy. If you don't consider ANY violation of ANYONE'S liberties a violation of your OWN liberty, then you just fuck off and let it happen. They come for you eventually too, and there is nobody left to stand and fight them with you. Besides you don't deserve anyone helping you because you were a cowardly cunt who let it happen to others.

I hope the British people fucking riot over this, but they will not. They are a bunch of lemming pussies too. Who am I to talk? We are proving to be the biggest bunch of retarded pussies in history. I shit you all not, if we don't get a grasp of our government and rip it away from corporations, we will be viewed by future historians as infinitely worse than the fucktards in the era of Germany that let the Nazis rise to power.

Why get so excited over some punk kid getting treated like a high crimes criminal? Sweet Jesus, people, this could be YOU. This could be ME! I don't have the means to fight this kind of shit? Do you? How far will they keep taking control over us? Oh fuck it, what can I expect of the Facebook generation? Stop the fucking planet, I want off.

Re:OMFG, what BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, your life and your internet is fucking ruined because you aren't allowed to get every movie, every song, every piece of software in existence for **FREE**. Fuck you, get a fucking job, and pay the people who make your entertainment. We aren't your fucking slaves.

Re:OMFG, what BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Seen this (newspaper link here)?

The giant computer company Cisco and U.S. prosecutors deceived Canadian authorities and courts in a massive abuse of process to have a former executive thrown in jail, says a B.C. Supreme Court judge.

The point, said Justice Ronald McKinnon in a stinging decision delivered orally on Tuesday, was to derail a lawsuit launched by the former employee, and involved a series of machinations that would make a normal person "blanch at the audacity of it all."

In a rare move, McKinnon stayed extradition proceedings against Peter Adekeye, a British computer entrepreneur who once worked for Cisco Systems, Inc.

The judge said U.S. prosecutors acted outrageously by having the respected executive bizarrely arrested in Vancouver on May 20, 2010 as he testified before a sitting of the American court he was accused of avoiding.

Re:OMFG, what BS

[Anonymous Coward]

In a nutshell. If the dog in your backyard bites you stop feeding it. But that's just too inconvenient for most of you. Easier to bitch and moan on /.

Re:OMFG, what BS

[CTU]

I would reply and tell you how ridicules you are acting for insulting the person with a strong opinion, but you are an Anonymous Coward and really not worth the time

Re:OMFG, what BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just go to France...

Re:OMFG, what BS

[RThaiRThai]

You're right! This is one of the most life changing quotes I've ever read on Slashdot, or at least I feel that way now. Hopefully I will act on those feelings the next time I hear about an injustice. I can't just consider this as something terrible that happened to someone; if I let it happen I'm saying I'm willing to let it happen to myself as well.

But I have a question for you: what should I do? In this case I am not British or American, so I'm not sure there is anything to be done; maybe I'm wrong.

What about if it happens in Canada? Should I write to a member of parliment? Tell all my friends? And at the same time I have a life of my own to deal with, and as terrible as something like this is, it isn't that likely to happen to me specifically. I can't stage a protest every time something like this happens; people will just get annoyed at me. On the other hand, we need people who are willing to be hated if it's for an important cause.

What about you? Will you stage a riot?

Re:OMFG, what BS

[lexsird]

I think the very most important thing that any of us can do is to become educated to the ways in which our governments function and elect on the grass roots level. Meaning most of the free world operates as some form of representative government. I believe that we collectively don't pay attention to these civil mechanics, thus allowing "bad people" to influence them or get elected to these positions. Frankly our public knows far more about sports and entertainment than they do their civic duties in keeping our governments truly representative of us.

Violence is not the answer I feel. Violence was done already by our forefathers in order that we can have a system that works peacefully. But if we let that system fall apart, or to "the other guy" we have to change that. We need to use the information age to our advantage, not let it be used against us in the form of disinformation, or memorizing us with trivial bullshit.

What I suggest is we NOT neglect our civic duties. Find out how or where the "grass roots" operates and meets and become a part of it. Educate and influence your family and friends to be part of it as well. If we are pressed, we must form our own political parties, but most effectively would be find one that already has the same values as you do and be a part of the process, let your voice be heard. If we are active, then it makes it that much harder for "them" to succeed. It can be a battle that we can win.

If we do nothing, the situation will NOT correct its self. Mark this moment and share it with others. There is a vigilance that we must always hold against things that are wrong. Again, violence I don't think is the answer. Yes, be angry, but let it fuel your vigilance and your drive for more education and more enlightenment. Present solutions, not more problems. We need cool heads to prevail.

Realize just how much awareness helps the situation as well. This is a story that will never see the light of day of major news outlets. Try to follow it, and discuss it at least with friends. We may not be able to help this kid, but becoming aware of this kind of injustice is the first steps of dealing with it. If one does protest, do so peacefully, please. I know my wording in the above post was angry, and we should be angry, but we are a civilized and intelligent people who's fore-bearers labored and sacrificed for us to have systems of government that we the people can be apart of.

Its high time that we did just that.

Re:OMFG, what BS

[randyleepublic]

If we ever get out from under, here's the blueprint for a better way - http://douglassocialcredit.com/

Re:It's the JEWS, stupid...

[Mashiki]

Well what can you expect from anti-semites? Blame the Jews is the oldest canard on the books. I mean what? 2000+ years now, and people have been using it instead of looking at their own failings.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[Grygus]

Even if he did it on purpose, I don't see how copyright violation is a crime worthy of extradition. If he can't be prosecuted locally then perhaps what he is doing isn't all that bad.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Public libraries don't deliberately create any vector for people to infringe on copyright. The content that libraries provide is all lawfully acquired. So, to a limited extent, copies that people might make can rightfully be claimed to fall within the jurisdiction of fair use. as long as the amount of material copied and the intended purpose of what is copied satisfies the criteria for fair use. Photocopiers in libraries create a vector for fair use that people can coincidentally also possibly use to commit copyright infringement.

Content being distributed on the Internet without permission from the copyright holder is already infringing on copyright, and deliberately creating links to content that is known to be infringing only further propagates the infringement. There is no other purpose to it, which is why I maintain that a person who does so be just as guilty as if they had directly infringed themselves.

Apples and oranges.

Blame Dick Wolf.

[Anonymous Coward]

Prosecutors in the U.S. have grown up watching "Law and Order". There the DAs and ADAs were obnoxious, self-righteous and overbearing. They thought they were the hand of justice and damn proud of it. I see this attitude reflected in this attempt to extradite. Blame Dick Wolf.

i thought copyright infringement funded terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't they claim that one aspect of copyright infringement is that the money procured from it funds terrorism?

How many Moms using Kazzaa and 23 yr old students will have to be publicly made and example of before they admit it has very little to do with terrorism. I could be way off base, but IF this kid made any money with this site, I seriously doubt he used it to fund terrorism. Oddly enough, he probably bought Music and Movies with the money ..I'm just sayin

Indeed

[Weaselmancer]

Oblig.

Re:Indeed

[jon_doh2.0]

Dang, yellow bastard's eatin' Alaska. And he's doing it dressed like uncle Sam! Sheeeet, i say nuke 'em.

Re:Indeed

[tsalmark]

I think you have your hemispheres mixed up. He is eating Newfoundland, Iceland, the British Isles and Scandinavia.

Re:Indeed

[jon_doh2.0]

Buddy, in my book north is up and there is only America, so... *hic*

Besides, is not Brit Isles in Northern and Western hem. along with US?

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

The IRS wants to have a word with you..

3rd party large wallets

[Themer]

What we need to happen is someone to build a site that has links that link to direct search requests on the major search engines pointing at the files in question. This will then get the big boys (big money) wrapped up in this horse-shit.

Re:Fuck this thief

[Anonymous Coward]

If he goes to a US prison, it's not a boot he'll get in his ass...

Under which law/treaty/act ?

[xyourfacekillerx]

Sorry but the article did not specify under which legal code the US was seeing the extradition. This is actually relevant to judgements of merit on my part (I feel most readers made up their minds upon readng the headline...) If he were to be tried in our CRIMINAL courts, I don't understand how he could possibly violate one of our own criminal statues, as US citizens do this all the time without prosecution.

What I gathered from the two links is that he did not simply link to copyrighted material, he profited from serving those links. His distribution-by-proxy appears to be a case of profit-by-proxy-distribution which I guess is the "crime" here, and I believe the AFK equivalent of this activity is easily prosecuted. His innocent linking looks a lot different in that light. Can anyone corroborate?

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[BoberFett]

Nearly every book in a library is copyrighted, so there is almost no possible non-infringing use for a library copier. Sounds like it's intended to aid infringement.

Genius

[glorybe]

Oh woopie, woopie do. Oh yeah! Drag the poor guy across the ocean. Give him a fair trial. Then lock him in a Fed. prison for five years. That way we can have the thrill of trashing a million bucks of tax payer money and make up for it by not heating 1000 seniors homes in the winter or denying six kidney transplants or cancer treatment drugs for an American mom. Or maybe we can deny 1000 wheel chairs to crippled kids just to lock up this mad dog violator.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[bmo]

Again, pointing at a file is not the same thing as copying.

And modding me flamebait for my disagreeing with you is a chickenshit move.

--
BMO

Re:Fuck this thief

[Sparx139]

Stop. Regardless of what you or I think about copyright infringement, this is wrong. He's being extradited for something that he did in another country. If it's illegal under UK law, he should be tried in the UK, because that's where the offence took place. Not in the US. Think about the implications here - if the US had something similar to Australia's small breast pornography law, then by the same process here they would be able to extradite someone on child pornography charges.

How's it Feel, Fuckers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the /. crowd voted for the Marxist in the White House and his communist minions, so there you go. Did you really think anyone who got his start with an unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayres, was going to cut YOU jerks a break?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Re:How's it Feel, Fuckers?

[sqrt(2)]

The government helping private businesses by acting as their policing arm and writing laws to protect them is a right-wing phenomenon. Obama is and always has been more of a corporatist than a Marxist. A real Marxist wouldn't be so slavishly devoted to giving the capitalists everything they wanted...not doing that is actually what they are all about, that's what makes them Marxists.

ice

[JohnVanVliet]

viva la revolution

It is time for a "guy fox " mask to show on on DHS/ICE
http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/1011/ideals-v-guy-fox-demotivational-poster-1288931853.png

Extradition of your own citizens?

[Illogical Spock]

Here in Brazil the law don't allow the government to extradite a brazilian citizen. Is this not commonplace?

Re:Extradition of your own citizens?

[shutdown -p now]

It generally is (US holds it in high regard towards its own citizens, for example), but UK-US is a very special relationship. It's pretty simple to explain, though: when US says "blow me", UK doesn't say anything because it already has the dick in her mouth.

Linking and copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

So; Can someone set me straight on this please

Linking is copyright infringement - so said. If I access the linked site a copy of what I access get's cached locally. Are the going to extradite evryone who accesses the subject site? I'm assuming it's actually on the web and easily found doing a proper search.

This is stoopid - Only some twit in the U.S. would think they're upholding the LAW by inditing some poor fool who simply said "Hey, look here". This has some seriously strange implications for web use. "Danger do not enter, U S Inditment lives here".

Where's the website hosted?

[Anonymous Coward]

I RTFA (I know, I know), but the location of the hosting isn't mentioned. I know alot of people here (Australia) who run sites hosted in servers on US soil. While the guy himself might be in the UK, doesn't committing an offense under US law on US soil mean that yeah, there's a much more legit case for extridition then if it's not? Outrage at a UK citizen linking on a UK webserver to content banned by the US I'd understand, but RTFA doesn't mention details like that.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[Kalriath]

Actually, the copier in the public library is there to facilitate authorised fair use copying of excerpts of copyrighted material for academic, parody, or other protected purposes. They usually even have a sign up telling you not to copy the whole book (leaving aside that every library I've ever visited, the copies cost money so you'd actually spend less buying the book than copying it).

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[DeathElk]

The copiers are there for educational use. At least here in Australia.

Julian Assange still is in the UK

[G3ckoG33k]

Julian Assange still is in the UK, not in Sweden and definitely not in the US.

Wikileaks vs tv shack...

thats not how it works completely

[dutchwhizzman]

The reason why is one part. The other part is that the UK trusts the US legal system so much, that they will extradite anyone that is supposed to get a "fair trial", without looking at what the charges are. This means that anyone that may or may not be charged in the UK and gets to wait for his trial in freedom, will get jailed with Bubba in the US, possibly waiting for over a year before being trialed and/or convicted. Even for something that will get you no more than a fine in the UK, even if you're innocent, you could spend a year in a US jail. Why do you think there are so many plea bargains made in the US? You do less jail time if you plea, even if you're innocent and that will be found at the trial.

Asymmetric

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the problem is asymmetry.

To extradite this student, they don't need to show the UK courts proof he did the crime they are claiming. Which they would fail at because he didn't infringe copyright by assembling links.

To extradite a US student to the UK, they would need to show the US courts the evidence of the crime committed, allowing challenges along the lines of "THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T SHOW I DID IT". Which seems to me to be a crucial point.

So they can effectively banish people from their own country without evidence that this person did that crime.

Did they call in the national guard?

[Hognoxious]

We've come a long way from the "creme rising to the top" and such in government.

In a theocracy it would be the Godley in charge.

Re:Did they call in the national guard?

[jenningsthecat]

Very funny, and very witty! I wish I had some mod points for you...

It gets better

[Anonymous Coward]

With the proposed law to criminalize streaming, plus this extradition trick, the US could fast become an economic powerhouse as thousands if not millions of foreign infringers are sent to labor c... I mean prisons in the US.

However, the links are not their copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the links are not their copyright. So how can someone be guilty of infringing copyright when the owner of the movie didn't make the link and therefore doesn't own the copyright on it?

Re:However, the links are not their copyright

[Em Adespoton]

I don't think anyone said this guy was guilty of infringing copyright... he's charged with intentionally facilitating copyright infringement.

It's similar to someone handing out pamphlets in a parking lot that describe where to find tools that can be used to break into cars, and telling people that breaking into cars is easy.

In both cases, of course, prosecution has to prove that such a stunt actually resulted in an offense -- you can't be accused for facilitating a crime that did not happen. Therefore, this guy's fine as long as nobody can prove that someone used his website to actually download the content its linked links link to.

Someone could be in just as much trouble for maintaining a website of google search queries that are designed to link to content known to be made available against the will of the copyright holder. All the person is doing is deep-linking Google's website, but they can still be held guilty for describing how to commit an illegal act.

Yes, this is where the issue is; if you tell someone that you know there's cash in the 7-11 till at such and such a place, and you know there's instructions on how to defeat security there written down at location X, if someone you tell that to goes ahead and robs the 7-11, you can be held accountable.

There is a fuzzy area here, where intent is extremely important. This is why we have law courts, to decide whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the intent exists.

Most cases that go to court eventually boil down to intent; most fact-based cases can be resolved by the parties before the thing ever makes it in front of a judge.

Don't conflate X with Pointer to X

[Morgaine]

No, no, and no.

If some content infringes copyright, and a link exists to that content, then it is the content that infringes (because it is a copy) and not the link (because it is not a copy). Copyright law is about copies, and does not deal with links.

And as a further no, a link does not carry any semantic (implied or otherwise) about the copyright status of whatever is at the far end of the link. The text that surrounds the link might do so, but the link itself does not. It's a semantic-free pointer. Copyright infringement may be a property of some content, but it is not a property of a link to that content, because a link does not have any relevant attribute to carry that information.

A thing and a pointer to a thing are utterly different, and trying to conflate them just makes a logical argument descend into logical nonsense.

Article 35!

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for everyone except the US to invoke article 35

Article 35

(1) This Convention shall remain in force without limitation as to time.

(2) Any country may denounce this Act by notification addressed to the Director General. Such denunciation shall constitute also denunciation of all earlier Acts and shall affect only the country making it, the Convention remaining in full force and effect as regards the other countries of the Union.

(3) Denunciation shall take effect one year after the day on which the Director General has received the notification.

(4) The right of denunciation provided by this article shall not be exercised by any country before the expiration of five years from the date upon which it becomes a member of the Union.

What's worse...

[michelcolman]

What's worse is that Slashdot is now linking to a story about a site that linked to copyrighted material. This means Slashdot is guilty of copyright infringement of all the material on that site, too!

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't mod you as anything, actually... and again, you seem to have missed my point.

*DELIBERATELY*

And whether or not it is the same thing is wholly irrelevant... deliberately creating vectors for people to commit copyright infringement when there is no other reason to link to the content (fair use, for example, cannot arguably apply to content that is already infringing, because it has been copied for distribution by the person who is now illegally sharing the content) is, quite frankly, just as bad as committing copyright infringement itself. Not the same thing, of course... but on par with, with regards to its severity.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Copying portions of legitimate copies of copyrighted works for your own personal use is generally considered fair use, so there *IS* a non-infringing purpose.

Show a non-infringing purpose for linking to content that is *ALREADY* infringing and the comparison might be more reasonable.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass...

[twidarkling]

Actually, the libraries pay fees that are distributed based on some formulae, and that covers the copyright fees and licences. Payment of those fees makes it a non-infringing use.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think link aggregation is in any way equivalent to actual infringement, but comparing it to library copiers is not the way to go.

Now that we're al reading the text...

[Anonymous Coward]

...might as well skip to Article 35.

Re:UK extradition treaty

[sabt-pestnu]

You are speaking of The 2003 Extradition Act?

Re:UK extradition treaty

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yeah, that's the one.

it's weird if you ask me.

[Anonymous Coward]

why do they target little guys / gals?
I think it is just to scare people into thinking .. "Hey .. This cold happen to anybody .. even me." Why don't they target the sites that actually HOST the links?
maybe it's cause they can't .. i dunno

TRUTH ABOUT JEWS FROM THEIR TALMUD

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/

Goyims, Gentiles, and Akum are anyone non-jewish.

===

1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."

5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."

6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

21. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

22. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

23. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

24. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

25. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

TRUTH ABOUT JEWS FROM THEIR TALMUD

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/

Goyims, Gentiles, and Akum are anyone non-jewish.

===

1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."

5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."

6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

21. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

22. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

23. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

24. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

25. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

Master Of Champions

[Anonymous Coward]

I am asking TV Shack if they can get Master Of Champions.