Piracy student from Sheffield can be extradited to US

[flamingjimmy 10]

Cant be bothered to get into one liners with you. If you are incapable of seeing my point that an actor should never feel in any way pressured or intimidated into not playing a role because of what auidences might think or react then lets just leave it at that.

 

No-one has argued against that point, it is a strawman that you have fabricated.

 

No-one other than you has said anything about what actors should or shouldn't do. Donkey merely pointed out how things are, not how they should be.

 

Besides in the post I quoted you weren't even making a point at all, you were merely attempting to make a joke along some sort of nationalistic line about America being better than Britain in some way. A thought which does not offend me in the slightest (which was clearly your intention) as a cosmopolitan. It just makes you look pathetic.

Edited January 16, 2012 by flamingjimmy

[donkey 10]

Cant be bothered to get into one liners with you. If you are incapable of seeing my point that an actor should never feel in any way pressured or intimidated into not playing a role because of what auidences might think or react then lets just leave it at that.

 

You are the one who is incapable of getting the point. Do you imagine that if someone was making a film portraying Reagan as a war mongering, corrupt closet fascist, that A list American actors and their agents would not detect a danger to their reputations and future work prospects through alienating large sections of the general public?

 

You might believe so, but I'm pretty sure people at the top end of the film industry aren't so slow on the uptake.

[sccsux 10]

He made money

 

Allegedly!

 

"Hosts links to pirated copyright films and TV programs" was the charge against him.

 

Which part of "NOT A CRIME" do you not understand?

[Harleyman 12]

You didn't live here in the Thatcher years, so how the hell would you know how people over here feel about her?

And BTW, you still aren't funny.

 

I'm not here to make you laugh donks just to give a demonstration on how ridiculous your mental though process is re the Thatcher film.

 

Dont assume that everybody hated her. She had and still has many admirers.

 

I may not have lived in the UK during the years she was in power but I remember what a mess the country was when i left. The sick man of Europe was the name it was given

I hated the coal miners and railway workers unions and the frequent disruptive strikes that we were plagued with. They always took place in winter, power brown outs, trying to get home from work on cold rainy nights when there were no trains running. The union leaders fought their battles with the government on the backs of the rest of us and didn't care what misery they caused in the process.

 

The miners paid the price for the callous power games their union bosses played much of it politically motivated rather than bettering the lot of their union members

Edited January 16, 2012 by Harleyman

[L00b 441]

But we're not discussing an actionable tort.

Potentially, he has (copyright infringement in the UK).

 

A UK Court should determine that first, in the following order:

Which copyright(s) exist? (content, which includes very many different types of copyrights)

Who owns it/them? (US studio or commissioning broadcaster e.g. HBO, Fox, or...)

Has it been infringed? (which infringing act(s), yes/no, primary or secondary, etc.)

 

If the UK Court finds that he has, then the rights owner obtains remedy (damages, etc.).

 

Then the extradition treaty might kick in (or not, as the basis on which he is being extradited is a very spurious interpretation of the treaty...even if the UK Court found him 'culpable').

The only question at issue is whether he's committed a crime

Under US law, there is strong likelihood that he has.

Under UK law, he has not (however you stretch whichever provisions of relevant Acts).

 

The "only" question is not that which you ask: the "only" relevant question, is the law of which jurisdiction governs the act(s) complained of?

Civil law doesn't come into it.

On the facts of the case, of course it does (or, well, should) - the initial cause of action is copyright infringement in the UK: the person is a UK citizen, resident in the UK at the material time, and the relevant acts were (allegedly) committed in the UK jurisdiction, whereby their sanctioning or otherwise are entirely guided by the CDPA'88. Which is an entirely civil piece of legislation (copyright infringement has always been, and to this day still is, an entirely civil matter in the UK).

 

Extradition to the US to face criminal proceedings for copyright infringement was pursued instead of (rightful, under the circumstances) civil proceedings for copyright infringement in the UK, because the rights owners knew they'd not go far pushing the (civil) case here. And might get to make an example, to boot.

 

I bet they couldn't believe their luck after they rolled that dice (and pressed the right buttons at Whitehall no doubt) And £10 tells you the lad would be brought up before a Texas Court (Your US IP barrister's Most Friendly State™)

Which part of "NOT A CRIME" do you not understand?

Harley seems to demonstrate very aptly the reason why rendition protocols and the very case of the OP appear perfectly acceptable to vast and sundry. I.e. let's do away with checks and balances, due process and national integrity.

 

Scary.

Edited January 16, 2012 by L00b

[poppins 10]

I don't see what all the fuss is about on here, commit the crime do the time

[Harleyman 12]

You are the one who is incapable of getting the point. Do you imagine that if someone was making a film portraying Reagan as a war mongering, corrupt closet fascist, that A list American actors and their agents would not detect a danger to their reputations and future work prospects through alienating large sections of the general public?

 

You might believe so, but I'm pretty sure people at the top end of the film industry aren't so slow on the uptake.

 

.

Any movie maker who wasn't a complete idiot wouldn't portray Reagan in the light you describe. The idea is to stick to hard facts, detailing the thoughts and acts of that person. The movie would show Reagan as a Conservative who was admired by many yet not admired by many others. It would also mention his mass firing of the Air Traffic Controllers, his head to head confrontation with the Soviet leaders, his part in starting the free trade movement which incidentally cost many Americans jobs as a result and his huge spending on the military, his agreement with the Soviets to reduce nuke war heads and crediting him to a certain degree with bringing about the fall of communism which was already on the ropes anyway.

 

You need to stick to posting opinions on the forum donks. You'd make a lousy movie maker probably making crappy ridiculous propoganda driven one sided rubbish that no one but the mentally retarded would spend a few bucks to see :hihi:

[ronthenekred 10]

I don't see what all the fuss is about on here, commit the crime do the time

 

Take it you can't read?

[Harleyman 12]

I don't see what all the fuss is about on here, commit the crime do the time

 

Seems like a lot of folks on the forum think O'Dwyer is some kind of hero whose getting a raw deal because he spent his post graduate time from Hallam in indulging in a little side line of questionable legality and has now been called to account over it

[Halibut 12]

I don't see what all the fuss is about on here, commit the crime do the time

 

Ignorance is not a virtue. Try reading the thread.

[Harleyman 12]

By someone he should not be accountable to.

 

So by that way of thinking lets summarize.

 

O'Dwyer has been instrumental in hosting a site that directed links to pirated movies and thereby playing some part in the loss of fair profit to those whose property that was.

But wait.... this was done in the UK. It was therfore not a crime under UK law but nevertheless was a crime in the US.

 

Now to go back a little in history. An IRA terrorist wanted in Britain for acts contrary to British law and order but domiciled in the US is requested by the Uk government for extradition to the UK to face trial. Should he face extradition and trial?

 

Maybe not because in the eyes of US law he has committed no crime in the US.

 

Fair enough?

[donkey 10]

.

 

You need to stick to posting opinions on the forum donks. You'd make a lousy movie maker probably making crappy ridiculous propoganda driven one sided rubbish that no one but the mentally retarded would spend a few bucks to see :hihi:

 

 

So you would come to see it then.