Piracy student from Sheffield can be extradited to US

[HeadingNorth 11]

Allegedly (by biased sources). No proof of this has been offered.

 

It wouldn't make any difference if it was true. Making money from a perfectly legal activity is not illegal!

[L00b 441]

As already stated, as far as precedent goes it is likely that what he was doing was perfectly legal in the UK.

Under current precedent, correct - but that hinges on the alleged revenue thing.

It wouldn't make any difference if it was true. Making money from a perfectly legal activity is not illegal!

Not necessarily so, as recent UK case law has determined that a pecuniary gain (from e.g. online advertising) in comparable circumstances is the actionable part of the case/tort.

 

Basically, if the other side can't prove that you made any gain from indexing torrents and whatnot, there is no case.

 

I'll dig up some refs, the most notable decisions escape me right now, but there is already a non-trivial amount of case law on "both" sides (-in the UK- indexers getting away with indexing for free, and rights owners scoring a win against ad-fuelled or paid-subscription indexers).

 

However, be that as it may and all that...it would still only be a civil matter (see below).

We are , or should be, quite entitled to do anything that is not illegal under our law.

Were it not for this "extradition" treaty, that is the fundamental point of law.

 

The real blinder, is that copyright infringement in the UK is entirely a civil (non-criminal) matter. Some offences (very few) carry a statutory fine off a scale (£ hundreds, not thousands or millions), but no jail. Not so in the US.

 

If US copyright was indeed infringed in the UK, US rights owners would still have civil remedies (depending on the specifics of the case) under the UK's CDPA 88 as amended, within the context/under the umbrella of the Berne Convention (which garantees recognition of copyright across borders of signatories), whereby there should be -strictly speaking- no legal requirement/argument to extradite at all.

 

This recent decision is a mark of infamy for the UK legislature and legal professionals. I wonder whether his brief considered the EUHCR angle (eminently more applicable to this case -which should be civil-only- than the Scottish NSA/CIA-hacker) and, if so, what the ratio decidendi was...

Edited January 16, 2012 by L00b

[Harleyman 12]

You think the public might get angry for portraying Hitler in a bad light? Says it all really.

 

Yeah well to go back to your original suggestion that no British actress would touch the part because Thatcher is a controversial and divisiive figure in UK political history is a load of nonsense. I know you're no Thatcher fan but surpise surprise not everyone in the movie business necessarily sides with your opinion of her old lad.

[Harleyman 12]

Ganz is Swiss and Wath is part of Rotherham although it's probably closer to Barnsley town centre than to Rotherham's.

 

My god! That's even worse than I thought

[flamingjimmy 10]

Yeah well to go back to your original suggestion that no British actress would touch the part because Thatcher is a controversial and divisiive figure in UK political history is a load of nonsense.

But why though? As has been explained and you seem to have accepted your analogy was fundamentally flawed. Now all you have is 'that's a load of nonsense' which is meaningless unless you justify it.

 

Making a film about Hitler is not going to polarise people, because pretty much everyone hates Hitler.

 

However making a film about Thatcher is going to polarise people, because a lot of people hate her and a lot of people think she was great.

 

It's really not complicated.

[Harleyman 12]

Nothing esoteric about the Best Boy job description. It's what the US movie industry call the first assistant to particular heads of the crew.

 

The head electrician has a best boy as does the head grip. Grips operate the various moving platforms such as dollies and cranes that carry cameras. Some grips will be responsible for moving lights.

 

As for the last part, probably an in joke connected to an amusing incident on set. The credits are not meant for the viewer really. They are there to give the cast and crew a warm fuzzy feeling when they see their own names on screen.

 

Thanks for the enlightenment. I had visons of some powdered faced movie producer demanding to know where his best boy was in a high falsetto lisp

[Harleyman 12]

But why though? As has been explained and you seem to have accepted your analogy was fundamentally flawed. Now all you have is 'that's a load of nonsense' which is meaningless unless you justify it.

 

Making a film about Hitler is not going to polarise people, because pretty much everyone hates Hitler.

 

However making a film about Thatcher is going to polarise people, because a lot of people hate her and a lot of people think she was great.It's really not complicated.

 

That's still no reason for not making a fiilm of her life unless you're suggesting that the movie industry should feel stifled and intimidated by public opinion one way or the other.

Whatever happened to freedom of expression and creativity?

 

Will there be riots and demonstrations outside the Odeon when the film reaches Sheffield? I would hardly think so

Edited January 16, 2012 by Harleyman

[flamingjimmy 10]

That's still no reason for not making a fiilm of her life unless you're suggesting that the movie industry should feel stifled and intimidated by public opinion one way or the other.

Yes there is. The reason that Donkey put forward, several pages ago, y'know the one which you failed to understand.

 

"be overly sympathetic to the old bat and one half of the country hates you. Concentrate on portraying the harm she did, and the other half of the country will hate you."

 

I'm not suggesting that they should feel stifled by public opinion, but they do. Besides I don't see the problem Meryl Streep is a wonderful impressionist I'm sure she's done just fine.

Whatever happened to freedom of expression and creativity?

Nothing, you've made a completely ridiculous strawman argument.

[sccsux 10]

Under current precedent, correct - but that hinges on the alleged revenue thing.

Not necessarily so, as recent UK case law has determined that a pecuniary gain (from e.g. online advertising) in comparable circumstances is the actionable part of the case/tort.

 

Basically, if the other side can't prove that you made any gain from indexing torrents and whatnot, there is no case.

 

I'll dig up some refs, the most notable decisions escape me right now, but there is already a non-trivial amount of case law on "both" sides (-in the UK- indexers getting away with indexing for free, and rights owners scoring a win against ad-fuelled or paid-subscription indexers).

 

However, be that as it may and all that...it would still only be a civil matter (see below).

Were it not for this "extradition" treaty, that is the fundamental point of law.

 

The real blinder, is that copyright infringement in the UK is entirely a civil (non-criminal) matter. Some offences (very few) carry a statutory fine off a scale (£ hundreds, not thousands or millions), but no jail. Not so in the US.

 

If US copyright was indeed infringed in the UK, US rights owners would still have civil remedies (depending on the specifics of the case) under the UK's CDPA 88 as amended, within the context/under the umbrella of the Berne Convention (which garantees recognition of copyright across borders of signatories), whereby there should be -strictly speaking- no legal requirement/argument to extradite at all.

 

This recent decision is a mark of infamy for the UK legislature and legal professionals. I wonder whether his brief considered the EUHCR angle (eminently more applicable to this case -which should be civil-only- than the Scottish NSA/CIA-hacker) and, if so, what the ratio decidendi was...

 

Quoted so that it doesn't get skipped by people that are interested in the thread title, rather than the (off topic) film garbage.

[L00b 441]

I'll dig up some refs, the most notable decisions escape me right now, but there is already a non-trivial amount of case law on "both" sides (-in the UK- indexers getting away with indexing for free, and rights owners scoring a win against ad-fuelled or paid-subscription indexers).

Right, see for instance "TV links" (factually very similar to this case) and "TV catchup" (a for-profit "amalgamation portal" of BBC, ITV and C4 iPlayer/equivalents, but without the broadcasters' say-so).

 

Just as a quick aside, the TV links guy was arrested and faced criminal charges over trade mark infringement (in addition to copyright infringement). Significantly different from copyright infringement alone (because, unlike the UK's CDPAct '88, the UK's TMAct 94 does include criminal offences, and the reason why e.g. several Nintendo DS flash cart suppliers have done clink time over here). [EDIT: I have glossed over the question of interpretation (service vs supply of goods) on purpose, here].

 

AFAIK, no trade mark infringement has been levelled at the guy in this case/the OP, so -again- there should be no criminal angle at all (unless media reports have glossed over this little fact...not unexpectedly if so )

Edited January 16, 2012 by L00b

[Harleyman 12]

Yes there is. The reason that Donkey put forward, several pages ago, y'know the one which you failed to understand.

 

"be overly sympathetic to the old bat and one half of the country hates you. Concentrate on portraying the harm she did, and the other half of the country will hate you."

 

I'm not suggesting that they should feel stifled by public opinion, but they do. Besides I don't see the problem Meryl Streep is a wonderful impressionist I'm sure she's done just fine.

Nothing, you've made a completely ridiculous strawman argument.

 

I dont think Meryl Streep will lose much sleep over that prospect ?

[HeadingNorth 11]

Not necessarily so, as recent UK case law has determined that a pecuniary gain (from e.g. online advertising) in comparable circumstances is the actionable part of the case/tort.

 

But we're not discussing an actionable tort. The only question at issue is whether he's committed a crime. Civil law doesn't come into it.