British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[firemanbob 10]

He didn't trade in the US.

 

jb

 

I was under the impression that his website was accessible in the US and that Americans used it to few pirate films.

 

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 16:10 ----------

 

As Barleycorn rightly says he wasn't trading in the USA, Americans of their own free will decided to access his website.

 

They were the ones who should have been aware of their laws, and as he was based in the UK obeying UK laws and they were resident in the USA breaking US laws they should have been the ones prosecuted.

 

That's the only way the system can be operated, everyone pays attention to the rules and regulations of their own country obeys them and problem solved.

 

To expect any internet company to observe the laws of every country in the world is unworkable and ridiculous.

 

Does the UK government and UK courts agree with you.

 

https://www.gov.uk/international-trade-in-services-import-and-export-regulations

 

If you supply a service in a foreign country, you must comply with local regulations. For example, it might be illegal for you to provide legal or financial advice unless you have certain professional qualifications.

 

Before selling your service overseas, you may want to take action to protect your intellectual property there.

 

I think there are also internationally agreed piracy and copyright laws.

 

It also looks like he ignored warning and when his site was shut down he created a new one, he clearly new that he was breaking piracy and copyright laws and was doing it for personal gain.

 

TV Shack Flouts The Feds By Moving Video Piracy Site To Offshore Domain

Edited October 10, 2014 by firemanbob

[mjw47 10]

I was under the impression that his website was accessible in the US and that Americans used it to few pirate films.

 

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 16:10 ----------

 

 

Does the UK government and UK courts agree with you.

 

https://www.gov.uk/international-trade-in-services-import-and-export-regulations

 

If you supply a service in a foreign country, you must comply with local regulations. For example, it might be illegal for you to provide legal or financial advice unless you have certain professional qualifications.

 

Before selling your service overseas, you may want to take action to protect your intellectual property there.

 

I think there are also internationally agreed piracy and copyright laws.

 

His website was accessible in the US by Americans who were breaking American laws, their choice, nothing to do with him, he was in Sheffield.

 

There was no question of him offering services, or advice of any kind, he was simply providing a link to allow people to access other sites,it was their choice whether or not to do so.

 

If what he was doing was illegal in the UK then he should have been dealt with by the UK courts.

 

America has introduced draconian laws to protect it's business and commercial interests, they are American laws and Britons had no say in electing the people who introduced them, so unless a Britain breaks those laws in America they should not be subject to them.

 

What should have happened was that the US made a formal complaint to the UK and our people then deal with it.

 

The fact that extradition was even mentioned in such a minor case as this is preposterous.

 

The only explanation for doing so was for the Americans to send a message, don't attempt to trespass on our turf, the commercial side of the internet is ours.

 

As I said earlier, they are abusing the arrangement and using it for commercial bullying, and we were stupid enough to let them.

[firemanbob 10]

His website was accessible in the US by Americans who were breaking American laws, their choice, nothing to do with him, he was in Sheffield.

 

There was no question of him offering services, or advice of any kind, he was simply providing a link to allow people to access other sites,it was their choice whether or not to do so.

 

If what he was doing was illegal in the UK then he should have been dealt with by the UK courts.

 

America has introduced draconian laws to protect it's business and commercial interests, they are American laws and Britons had no say in electing the people who introduced them, so unless a Britain breaks those laws in America they should not be subject to them.

 

What should have happened was that the US made a formal complaint to the UK and our people then deal with it.

 

The fact that extradition was even mentioned in such a minor case as this is preposterous.

 

The only explanation for doing so was for the Americans to send a message, don't attempt to trespass on our turf, the commercial side of the internet is ours.

 

As I said earlier, they are abusing the arrangement and using it for commercial bullying, and we were stupid enough to let them.

 

That fact that the site existed for the purpose of allowing people from all over the world to access pirate film means he was offering a service, from what I can gather he was asked to close the site down, warned that he faced prosecution if he didn't, he ignore the warning so the US shut the site down, he created another one so the US decided to prosecute him.

[mjw47 10]

That fact that the site existed for the purpose of allowing people from all over the world to access pirate film means he was offering a service, from what I can gather he was asked to close the site down, warned that he faced prosecution if he didn't, he ignore the warning so the US shut the site down, he created another one so the US decided to prosecute him.

 

The US had no business prosecuting him, he is a British citizen, all they had to do was report him to our authorities and allow them to deal with the matter.

 

Why the completely over the top reaction?

 

Why the sledgehammer to crack a nut routine?

 

Why use an agreement that was supposedly brought in for 'National Security' reasons against a lone youngster with a website?

[firemanbob 10]

The US had no business prosecuting him, he is a British citizen, all they had to do was report him to our authorities and allow them to deal with the matter.

 

Why the completely over the top reaction?

 

Why the sledgehammer to crack a nut routine?

 

Why use an agreement that was supposedly brought in for 'National Security' reasons against a lone youngster with a website?

 

Because he ignored their request to close the site down, ignored their threat of prosecution, created a new site when they closed the old one down, by the sounds of it he was a cocky sod that thought he could get away with flouting the law for profit.

[mjw47 10]

Because he ignored their request to close the site down, ignored their threat of prosecution, created a new site when they closed the old one down, by the sounds of it he was a cocky sod that thought he could get away with flouting the law for profit.

 

So a young lad acting a bit cocky warrants the full force of an extradition treaty being brought into force?

 

Why wasn't it left to the British authorities to deal with the matter?

 

He was in Sheffield, none of the servers he used were in the US, nowt to do with them other than they had a right to complain to our people and ask them to deal with it.

[firemanbob 10]

So a young lad acting a bit cocky warrants the full force of an extradition treaty being brought into force?

 

Why wasn't it left to the British authorities to deal with the matter?

 

He was in Sheffield, none of the servers he used were in the US, nowt to do with them other than they had a right to complain to our people and ask them to deal with it.

 

If someone went to the US to rob a bank would you expect them to be prosecuted by the US?

 

If the same person robbed the same bank but used a computer in the UK, why wouldn't it be appropriate to prosecute them in the US?

[mjw47 10]

If someone went to the US to rob a bank would you expect them to be prosecuted by the US?

 

If the same person robbed the same bank but used a computer in the UK, why wouldn't it be appropriate to prosecute them in the US?

 

If someone went to the US to rob a bank then yes I'd expect them to be prosecuted in the US.

 

In the second scenario, under the terms of the current treaty no it wouldn't be appropriate to prosecute them in the US, if they committed the crime whilst in Britain and were British citizens then they should be prosecuted in Britain using evidence supplied by the US.

 

Any country has a duty of care to it's citizens and should try to provide them with fairness and justice under the laws of their country.

 

Britain has abrogated it's responsibility to it's citizens by signing that treaty.

 

I have dual nationality as a birthright and hold an Irish passport. Out of interest I took a look at the regulations which apply in cases of extradition under the treaty Ireland has with the US.

 

There are a number of conditions which must be met before an extradition can be approved.

 

Three of them are quite interesting.

 

1, There must be a principle of dual criminality, in other words the offence has to also be a criminal offence under Irish law.

 

2,The offence must carry a sentence of at least one years prison in both jurisdictions.

 

3, You cannot be extradited if you are going to be held in custody for the purpose of investigation.

 

I believe the second condition would rule out the extradition of Richard O' Dwyer,I don't think his offence would warrant a twelve month prison sentence in either Ireland or Britain.

 

The third condition would rule out the extradition of David Mcintyre the ex British soldier who has been held in a Washington DC prison on 23 hour lock down since 3 July this year.

 

So Ireland, with a total population of 4.6 million has a more robust treaty, which provides it's citizens with more protection from Uncle Sam than the UK.

 

Pathetic, if I ever upset the Yanks I'm making a beeline for Erin's Green Isle at a speed that would leave the roadrunner panting in my wake.

[barleycorn 10]

Because he ignored their request to close the site down, ignored their threat of prosecution, created a new site when they closed the old one down, by the sounds of it he was a cocky sod that thought he could get away with flouting the law for profit.

 

And he had every right to do so. If America doesn't want it's citizens accessing a site located outside of its borders then simply block the site.

 

jb

 

ETA: You still haven't replied to post 256

[firemanbob 10]

No, he provided a website that was operated fully in the UK and complied fully with UK law. Americans could access the site and use it to carry out activities that were illegal in America. If anyone should be prosecuted it should be the Americans who used his site.

As an analogy, if I went over to Amsterdam and bought some weed, brought it back with me and was subsequently caught with it should the owner of the shop in Amsterdam I bought it from be extradited to the UK for being a drug dealer?

 

jb

 

The service he provided was in Amsterdam and the only way of accessing that service was for you to go to Amsterdam, so it isn't comparable to someone providing an internet based service that is accessible in the other countries. If he opened a shop in the UK then he should be obliged to follow UK laws.

 

I don't know much about website construction and accessibility but from what I can gather it isn't impossible to construct a website that is only accessible from within the country of operation. So it would appear that he could have easily prevented American users from accessing his site.

 

Choose which countries you want to ban and any visitors from that country get a HTTP/403 error with the standard message "Forbidden - Users from your country are not permitted to browse this site."

Edited October 11, 2014 by firemanbob

[tzijlstra 11]

The service he provided was in Amsterdam and the only way of accessing that service was for you to go to Amsterdam, so it isn't comparable to someone providing an internet based service that is accessible in the other countries. If he opened a shop in the UK then he should be obliged to follow UK laws.

 

I don't know much about website construction and accessibility but from what I can gather it isn't impossible to construct a website that is only accessible from within the country of operation. So it would appear that he could have easily prevented American users from accessing his site.

 

Choose which countries you want to ban and any visitors from that country get a HTTP/403 error with the standard message "Forbidden - Users from your country are not permitted to browse this site."

 

You clearly don't know a lot about the web anyway, is this still to do with the ECHR or is it to do with human rights now?

[firemanbob 10]

You clearly don't know a lot about the web

 

I agree, are you saying that website owners have no means to block users?