HeadingNorth   11 #37 Posted January 13, 2012 search engines can't tell if the content they are indexing is copyright or not. sites like youtube are the same. if notified by a copyright holder of content which violates their copyright then they remove it.  the site which this young man appears to have run seem to have actively encouraged links to content which violates the copyright holders rights  But that is not illegal under English law. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg   11 #38 Posted January 13, 2012 But that is not illegal under English law.  indeed, however it is under american and possibly other jurisdictions  there has always been a problem with sites serving content in a manner which may be legal in one jurisdiction that is illegal in the one where it is viewed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Rupert_Baehr   10 #39 Posted January 13, 2012 If the law needs changing, there's not a lot of point in a judge refusing to extradite him. Precedent is not set at that level.  Neither the Court of Appeal not the House of Lords can make laws ... but both courts can 'interpret' them in the event that the real intention of Parliament is perhaps 'less than entirely clear'.  If Parliament disagrees with the interpretation of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords then Parliament can re-confirm that the original interpretation was correct, or they could amend the law. They can't ignore the problem and hope it will go away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Rupert_Baehr   10 #40 Posted January 13, 2012 search engines can't tell if the content they are indexing is copyright or not. sites like youtube are the same. ...  You do surprise me. I have (on many occasions) tried to open a youtube link posted in a thread on this forum only to get an error message which says something like: "The owner of this content does not allow it to be made available in your country."  Youtube have no difficulty in identifying the country from which I'm accessing their site, they can identify the owner of the content I am trying to access, they are aware of that owner's wishes and they can block my access. - Unless, of course, I use a proxy server elsewhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #41 Posted January 13, 2012 indeed, however it is under american and possibly other jurisdictions  That's exactly the point. Under the terms of this treaty, a British citizen, living in Britain, committing an act which is entirely legal in Britain, can be extradited to the USA jailed for it.  American jurisdiction does not apply in Britain, and never has. Yet under the terms of this law, it might as well do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
upinwath   10 #42 Posted January 13, 2012 I do believe he did something wrong but that doesn't mean I agree with this demi legal kidnapping.  http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93775/british-student-faces-extradition-to-the-us-for-linking-to-copyrighted-material/  There appears to not be any connection to the US and there was no copyrighted material on the TVShack servers.  There was no apparent crime the UK authorities are concerned enough to arrest him for and absolutely no US involvement on his part. He linked to sites where copyright material was available (wrong in my opinion) but held none on his own site.  He may have bugged Hollywood but that doesn't mean he should be sent to a foreign country for crimes they claim he committed in the UK, not in the US of Idiots. In conclusion. It is my opinion the US are trying to be the world's policeman, insisting their law is the only one and claiming authority over British subjects.  My message to the arrogant US, "sod off". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
donkey   10 #43 Posted January 13, 2012 Interesting that all the high profile cases of extradition under this act so far have involved supposed 'crimes' against the rich and powerful in the US.  Unfortunately this treaty is clearly motivated by the exercise of power rather than of justice, otherwise we would be able to extradite the swindlers from Goldman Sachs et al and string them up! Am I allowed to say that, or am I now open to extradition because I've broken US law? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg   11 #44 Posted January 13, 2012 You do surprise me. I have (on many occasions) tried to open a youtube link posted in a thread on this forum only to get an error message which says something like: "The owner of this content does not allow it to be made available in your country."  youtube wait for the copyright owner to complain then take action Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Phanerothyme   12 #45 Posted January 14, 2012 youtube wait for the copyright owner to complain then take action  They go further than TV shack, they actually host the content. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
upinwath   10 #46 Posted January 14, 2012 They go further than TV shack, they actually host the content.  Shhhh - The FBI will be after them. Oh, hang on...is youtube American owned? Better just tell them to be careful then.  Sod off, US of arseholes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Phanerothyme   12 #47 Posted January 14, 2012 Shhhh - The FBI will be after them. Oh, hang on...is youtube American owned? Better just tell them to be careful then.  Sod off, US of arseholes.  Don't blame them, blame Jack Straw for being the supine spineless dickwad that he unarguably is and always will be.  The US were pretty smart, bet they couldn't believe Straw would be so gullible. Every other country offered the 'deal' refused it, more or less. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
upinwath   10 #48 Posted January 14, 2012 Don't blame them, blame Jack Straw for being the supine spineless dickwad that he unarguably is and always will be. The US were pretty smart, bet they couldn't believe Straw would be so gullible. Every other country offered the 'deal' refused it, more or less.  Blair got well paid for his arse licking the US, did Shaw? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...