'Piracy' student to be extradited

RK · 13th January 2012, 20:54

BBC News - 'Piracy' student Richard O'Dwyer loses extradition case

Quote:

'Piracy' student Richard O'Dwyer loses extradition case

Mr O'Dwyer's mother criticised the UK's extradition treaty with the US
A Sheffield student can be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement allegations, a judge has ruled.

Richard O'Dwyer, 23, set up the TVShack website which US authorities say hosts links to pirated copyrighted films and television programmes.

The Sheffield Hallam University student lost his case in a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

If found guilty in a US court he could face up to five years in jail.

Mr O'Dwyer's lawyer, Ben Cooper, indicated during the hearing that he would appeal against the ruling.

Mr Cooper said the website did not store copyright material itself and merely directed users to other sites, making it similar to Google.

He also argued that his client, who would be the first British citizen to be extradited for such an offence, was being used as a "guinea pig" for copyright law in the US.

But District Judge Quentin Purdy ruled the extradition could go ahead.

Mr O'Dwyer's mother, Julia O'Dwyer, from Chesterfield, has described the moves by US authorities as "beyond belief" and described Britain's extradition treaty with the United States as "rotten".

Speaking before the hearing, Mr O'Dwyer said he was "surprised" when police officers from the UK and America seized equipment at his home in South Yorkshire in November 2010.

However, no criminal charges followed from the UK authorities.

The case was brought by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned "over $230,000 in advertising revenue" before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name.

The story is interesting on it's own but something else made me post it.

If you visit the website in question and click the image This domain name has been seized by ICE - Homeland Security Investigations , it'll start up a youtube video about how piracy is bad. It's an odd video - they're basically saying that if you use pirated media, innocent sound-recording-women are losing their jobs.

I'm not saying piracy isn't wrong, but it's hard to have the guilt/sympathy that the video is trying to get across. Huge media organisations lobby/pay the US goverment to crack down on these issues not because they care about Susan the sound-recording-woman, but because they think it's their right to make more millions/billions by selling their overpriced shite at the same level it was 10 years ago. They couldn't care less about 'poor' Susan. And the man in the suit is bad.

rcoobc · 13th January 2012, 20:59

Notch clarifies his views on piracy - 'a minor offense' - Minecraft for PC News About sums what my views on it are.

My brother always points out that buying a game second hand gives the same amount of money to the creators as pirating it. I try and counter that buying second hand means that the original price slightly but I doubt that is very correct.

Mick1991 · 13th January 2012, 21:02

I read today that Ireland (Irish Government) is being sued EMI Ireland because we are taking too long to write our anti-piracy laws.

Sense of entitlement.

TDon69 · 13th January 2012, 21:12

America Fuck Yeah!!
You'd think them wankers would be more worried about catching the criminals in their own country without trying to police the rest of the world as well.

I'd love to know just how much money is being spent to combat piracy. I guess it's a really important issue, you know, we don't want those poor millionaires getting ripped off now do we?

Hectic · 13th January 2012, 21:19

Slowly moving out of the war on drugs, and straight onto the war of piracy.

Skywarden · 13th January 2012, 21:21

The Pirate Bay chaps also told the court that they weren't storing data - to no avail of course.

Poor Richard has no legs to stand on, on this one. At least his judge or jury wasn't from the music industry like in the TPB case.

Grinner · 13th January 2012, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick1991

I read today that Ireland (Irish Government) is being sued EMI Ireland because we are taking too long to write our anti-piracy laws.

Sense of entitlement.

Well, when you say how they can fuck up a simple cup draw this is quite understandable.

Team Brian GB · 13th January 2012, 21:29

From what I understand this guy ran a popular website directing traffic to illegal download sites and made thousands from it in advertising revenue, and when this site was closed down for such reasons he opened up another.

It is difficult to feel sorry for this guy - it isn't as if he sent a copy of weblinks to somebody in an email, when the authorities had his website closed down that should have told him all too clearly that the law was not on his side yet he carried on regardless.

Sir Matt · 13th January 2012, 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

From what I understand this guy ran a popular website directing traffic to illegal download sites and made thousands from it in advertising revenue, and when this site was closed down for such reasons he opened up another.

It is difficult to feel sorry for this guy - it isn't as if he sent a copy of weblinks to somebody in an email, when the authorities had his website closed down that should have told him all too clearly that the law was not on his side yet he carried on regardless.

Change thousands to billions and you get Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.

Team Brian GB · 13th January 2012, 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Matt

Change thousands to billions and you get Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.

The major search engines were not set up for the purpose of distributing illegal material and do not try to evade the authorities on such matters which this guy clearly did in setting up a second website after the first one was closed down, that isn't to say they couldn't be doing more on it though.

Mick1991 · 13th January 2012, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grinner

Well, when you say how they can fuck up a simple cup draw this is quite understandable.

I saw that yesterday.

RyanGoggs · 13th January 2012, 22:18

Is it wrong to send basically direct people to illegal content? I suppose they could jail him on the grounds of aiding criminal activity. Has their ever been a case where an end user has been arrested for downloading illegal films and media? As surely these are the people actually committing the crime along with the people hosting the content.

Skywarden · 13th January 2012, 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanGoggs

Is it wrong to send basically direct people to illegal content? I suppose they could jail him on the grounds of aiding criminal activity. Has their ever been a case where an end user has been arrested for downloading illegal films and media? As surely these are the people actually committing the crime along with the people hosting the content.

Only a month ago a 16 yo kid here in Sweden got his sentence after downloading copyrighted material on a school computer. Six months ago a 60 yo man was also found guilty of downloading copyrighted material.

There are a couple more cases here involving end users, so in short, yes.

RyanGoggs · 13th January 2012, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywarden

Only a month ago a 16 yo kid here in Sweden got his sentence after downloading copyrighted material on a school computer. Six months ago a 60 yo man was also found guilty of downloading copyrighted material.

There are a couple more cases here involving end users, so in short, yes.

I'm pretty sure that everyone I know does it though. I'm guessing that finding the source of the problem is more beneficial than arresting the end user

surf · 13th January 2012, 23:05

He'll double* the average IQ of the US prison population.

*Obvious hyperbole

Skywarden · 13th January 2012, 23:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanGoggs

I'm pretty sure that everyone I know does it though. I'm guessing that finding the source of the problem is more beneficial than arresting the end user

Prosecutors admitted that the confessions made by the offenders were key. In some of the cases they had no search warrants and it would have been physically impossible proving the offenders guilty of their charge(s).

It's much more convenient to charge the "big fishes" after the TPB case. Any type of commercial revenue from your site while redirecting traffic to illegally obtainable material and you are screwed. Commercial interest did reduce the penalties for the offenders in both cases I mentioned.

Silva · 13th January 2012, 23:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

The major search engines were not set up for the purpose of distributing illegal material and do not try to evade the authorities on such matters which this guy clearly did in setting up a second website after the first one was closed down, that isn't to say they couldn't be doing more on it though.

So, if his website also had links to legal content there would be absolutely nothing wrong with it and he could get on with his life?

Colin129 · 14th January 2012, 00:14

What's the situation with sports streams then?

We all try to be subtle when sharing streams but are we putting ourselves/the Cafe/the stream sites at risk?

TDon69 · 14th January 2012, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin129

What's the situation with sports streams then?

We all try to be subtle when sharing streams but are we putting ourselves/the Cafe/the stream sites at risk?

Good question. I don't know the answer, however I do remember some pub owner winning a case to show previously illegal (to watch in the UK) matches...the judge ruled in her favour.
Also questioned the legalities of watching a stream of a match that wasn't being shown on a paid for tv service in your country.

Skywarden · 14th January 2012, 00:51

The US (surprise) are working on a senate bill (978) rendering streaming a felony. Not sure what happened with the bill but you can read up on it.

Then there's the case Tdon is mentioning. Can't recall the details but it has been posted here on the caf I believe.

BAMSOLA · 14th January 2012, 01:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin129

What's the situation with sports streams then?

We all try to be subtle when sharing streams but are we putting ourselves/the Cafe/the stream sites at risk?

I've always said these should only be shared by PM anyway and not in the actual threads as some do, if only so that the sites in question stand less chance of being noticed by the relevant authorities.

rcoobc · 14th January 2012, 01:21

Does anyone remember when you used to be able to search like "file:mp3|aac" in google and it would just point you to servers with those songs held. Those where the days.

Now its grown up and has a secret laboratory where its building the space elevator, whilst all the other websites get taken down by teh man.

Wibble · 14th January 2012, 05:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Brian GB

From what I understand this guy ran a popular website directing traffic to illegal download sites and made thousands from it in advertising revenue, and when this site was closed down for such reasons he opened up another.

It is difficult to feel sorry for this guy - it isn't as if he sent a copy of weblinks to somebody in an email, when the authorities had his website closed down that should have told him all too clearly that the law was not on his side yet he carried on regardless.

The US authorities seized his domain name.

A UK citizen is being extradited for ?????

Google is by far the best source of direct download copies of almost everything and Google provide links to the vast majority of sites that provide torrents, P2P and direct download links. Yet they go after some young bloke from Chesterfield.

The UK government need to tell the US to wind their necks in but like Australia over the wikileaks case, Cameron is far to invested in big business and is more likely to have a sex change than stand up to the US and deny himself the chance to look Presidential when meeting Obama.

Team Brian GB · 14th January 2012, 05:42

It is no excuse that you are only doing what others are - he should have known what he was doing was illegal, especially after the Americans siezed his first website yet he then has the idiocy to go and create a second website. Seriously, how did he think the Americans were going to react?

When I first heard about this case I felt sorry for him because I only heard that he posted links on a website, not that he ran a highly profitable website with the sole purpose of directing people to such material and tried to evade the Americans in doing so.

surf · 14th January 2012, 05:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibble

The US authorities seized his domain name.

A UK citizen is being extradited for ?????

Google is by far the best source of direct download copies of almost everything and Google provide links to the vast majority of sites that provide torrents, P2P and direct download links. Yet they go after some young bloke from Chesterfield.

The UK government need to tell the US to wind their necks in but like Australia over the wikileaks case, Cameron is far to invested in big business and is more likely to have a sex change than stand up to the US and deny himself the chance to look Presidential when meeting Obama.

Well, would Cameron rather pick a fight with the US or get some flak from Chesterfield and the Daily Mail for being supine? This way, he gets some brownie points from the US and allows the Americans to look like the bad bully boys. And he can say that extradition proceedings are a legal process run by an "independent" judiciary. I can understand why he would see it to be to his advantage not to get involved.

It's similar to when state governors in the US don't approve clemency requests from prisoners on death row. There is usually no political advantage to them in inserting themselves into judicial processes.

mjs020294 · 14th January 2012, 07:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibble

The US authorities seized his domain name.

A UK citizen is being extradited for ?????

Google is by far the best source of direct download copies of almost everything and Google provide links to the vast majority of sites that provide torrents, P2P and direct download links. Yet they go after some young bloke from Chesterfield.

The UK government need to tell the US to wind their necks in but like Australia over the wikileaks case, Cameron is far to invested in big business and is more likely to have a sex change than stand up to the US and deny himself the chance to look Presidential when meeting Obama.

The US authorities are acting on behalf of and after copyright infringement complaints. The site in question sole purpose was to direct people to illegal sites, its not Google by any stretch of the imagination. The site was shut down once and warnings were given so for him to even pretend he didn't know what he was doing is illegal is nonsense.

A British judge has ruled the extradition application can proceed, and he can appeal on legal grounds in the UK courts. At the end of the day everything is being down above board and ultimately if he faces charges in the US he only has himself to blame.

In cases like this I would rather see a joint agreement between judicial systems where the offenders could be charged, tried, and convicted in their own country. It would make much more sense for a large fine to be levied and enforced by the UK courts in this instance.

Wibble · 14th January 2012, 07:05

Utter disgrace. Stand up for your citizens I say.

I lost a huge amount of respect for Gillard and Australian Labor when they didn't stand up for Julian Assange.

Wibble · 14th January 2012, 07:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjs020294

The US authorities are acting on behalf of and after copyright infringement complaints. The site in question sole purpose was to direct people to illegal sites, its not Google by any stretch of the imagination. The site was shut down once and warnings were given so for him to even pretend he didn't know what he was doing is illegal is nonsense.

Which British law has he broken? If so why hasn't he been charged?

Quote:

A British judge has ruled the extradition application can proceed, and he can appeal on legal grounds in the UK courts. At the end of the day everything is being down above board and ultimately if he faces charges in the US he only has himself to blame.

Hopefully this is appealed and reversed. And utter disgrace. Tactics like this are no more rational than King Kanute's attempts to stop the tide coming in.

Quote:

In cases like this I would rather see a joint agreement between judicial systems where the offenders could be charged, tried, and convicted in their own country. It would make much more sense for a large fine to be levied and enforced by the UK courts in this instance.

I'd like to see the UK grow some balls and tell the US to feck off and govern their own population and leave our population to us.

mjs020294 · 14th January 2012, 07:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibble

Which British law has he broken? If so why hasn't he been charged?
Hopefully this is appealed and reversed. And utter disgrace. Tactics like this are no more rational than King Kanute's attempts to stop the tide coming in.

I'd like to see the UK grow some balls and tell the US to feck off and govern their own population and leave our population to us.

Extradition laws and the judicial systems are meant to be impartial. He doesn't have to break any UK laws but if he has broken laws in a country the UK has an extradition treaty with he can face charges there. He will have his day in UK court but if there are no legal grounds to block the extradition it will be granted if the US authorities proceed with the application.

Your last statement is just plain stupid. No one is trying to govern anyone. The guy has been profiting from illegal activities.

Team Brian GB · 14th January 2012, 07:11

Stand up for your citizens when they break the laws of another country? Absolutely not, I didn't know it went as far as MJS said - I thought it was only implied that the Americans were onto him through closing down his first site but I didn't know there were actual warnings given to him.

prateik · 14th January 2012, 07:13

Is expressing disgust at torrents and warning people to stay away from certain links illegal too?

Wibble · 14th January 2012, 08:05

So if Iran ask for the owners of a web site that provides information where to get pornography from to be extradited to Iran because they break Iranian laws you think we should comply? Perhaps only if they warn the site owners they are breaking Iranian law first?

Or if China want the owners of a web site indexing anti-Chinese web sites extradited?

Extradition should only be entertained (and not necessarily granted) where the law was broken in the overseas country and then only if that alleged offense is a major crime in the host country.

Wibble · 14th January 2012, 08:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjs020294

Extradition laws and the judicial systems are meant to be impartial. He doesn't have to break any UK laws but if he has broken laws in a country the UK has an extradition treaty with he can face charges there. He will have his day in UK court but if there are no legal grounds to block the extradition it will be granted if the US authorities proceed with the application.

Your last statement is just plain stupid. No one is trying to govern anyone. The guy has been profiting from illegal activities.

The legislation that this is proceeding under is exactly the sort of abdication of self determination right wingers should be up in arms about. It looks like this kid hasn't broken a UK law, and he was operating in the UK. The idea that he has broken US law by having a site that US residents may have used is ludicrous and is just further demonstration of how far behind the times our copyright and associated laws are.

surf · 14th January 2012, 09:30

We don't know that he hasn't broken a UK law. At this point, the UK authorities have not charged him. They could be keeping their options open and letting the US take the lead.

Going back to your Iran/China examples, the Fergie (the other one) extradition request by Turkey is an actual example of a dubious foreign government trying it on, and the UK was never going to allow that one.

mjs020294 · 14th January 2012, 15:34

I find it amusing he is getting referred to as a kid or student in the reporting of this story. He is a grown man that made a conscious decision to do something illegal for financial gain. After having one site shutdown and being warned he was up and running again within weeks. He wasn't doing this for the good of Internet users, it was greed that drove him.

rcoobc · 14th January 2012, 17:29

I find it amusing that he couldnt be prosecuted under EU law so has to be extradited to the US.

mjs020294 · 14th January 2012, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcoobc

I find it amusing that he couldnt be prosecuted under EU law so has to be extradited to the US.

Lets not let facts get in the way of an opportunity to stir up a little anti-US sentiment hey.

But District Judge Quentin Purdy ruled the extradition could go ahead.

He said he was satisfied that the alleged conduct would constitute an offence under British law, adding that although facing trial abroad was “daunting”, it was important that justice worked across borders.

“Enforcement of cross-border criminal justice is intended, in part at least, to ensure alleged victims of crime and the wider public confidence in criminal justice is not thwarted by national borders,” he said.

The court heard that after O’Dwyer was arrested in London in November 2010, he admitted to police that he owned TVShack.net and TVShack.cc and earned about #15,000 (18,000 euros, $23,000) a month from online advertising.

RedKaos · 14th January 2012, 18:10

Should face a firing squad.

pauldyson1uk · 14th January 2012, 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywarden

Only a month ago a 16 yo kid here in Sweden got his sentence after downloading copyrighted material on a school computer. Six months ago a 60 yo man was also found guilty of downloading copyrighted material.

There are a couple more cases here involving end users, so in short, yes.

Jesus , if they got hold of my laptop and my external HD's , I would be in the shit ( no there is no porn)

rcoobc · 14th January 2012, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjs020294

Lets not let facts get in the way of an opportunity to stir up a little anti-US sentiment hey.

But District Judge Quentin Purdy ruled the extradition could go ahead.

He said he was satisfied that the alleged conduct would constitute an offence under British law, adding that although facing trial abroad was “daunting”, it was important that justice worked across borders.

“Enforcement of cross-border criminal justice is intended, in part at least, to ensure alleged victims of crime and the wider public confidence in criminal justice is not thwarted by national borders,” he said.

The court heard that after O’Dwyer was arrested in London in November 2010, he admitted to police that he owned TVShack.net and TVShack.cc and earned about #15,000 (18,000 euros, $23,000) a month from online advertising.

Tv-links.co.uk was tried for the same damn thing but it was thrown out after 3 years because under EU law:

"This week Judge Ticehurst gave his judgment, announcing that TV-Links had won their case. He ruled in detail for the first time in a Crown Court in relation to Section 17 of the European Commerce Directive 2000, stating that Section 17 indeed applied and afforded TV-Links a complete defense in criminal proceedings in England and Wales for their linking to other web sites. In a nutshell and to coin a familiar phrase, the site was deemed a mere conduit of information."

This was 2010 that the TV-links.co.uk case got thrown out so why is it now happening again. That judge can think what he likes, it doesn't mean he was right.

Either the 2012 judge is correct or the 2010 one is.

http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article...e-way-of-oink/

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

'Piracy' student to be extradited

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

13th January 2012, 20:59	#2 (permalink)
rcoobc Not as crap as eferyone thinks Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Corrupting West Brom Posts: 17,197	Notch clarifies his views on piracy - 'a minor offense' - Minecraft for PC News About sums what my views on it are. My brother always points out that buying a game second hand gives the same amount of money to the creators as pirating it. I try and counter that buying second hand means that the original price slightly but I doubt that is very correct.

13th January 2012, 21:02	#3 (permalink)
Mick1991 First Team Sub Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Ireland Posts: 6,071	I read today that Ireland (Irish Government) is being sued EMI Ireland because we are taking too long to write our anti-piracy laws. Sense of entitlement.

13th January 2012, 21:12	#4 (permalink)
TDon69 Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: ® ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ © Posts: 2,680	America Fuck Yeah!! You'd think them wankers would be more worried about catching the criminals in their own country without trying to police the rest of the world as well. I'd love to know just how much money is being spent to combat piracy. I guess it's a really important issue, you know, we don't want those poor millionaires getting ripped off now do we?

13th January 2012, 21:19	#5 (permalink)
Hectic Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mike Phelan WILL kill you. Posts: 6,844	Slowly moving out of the war on drugs, and straight onto the war of piracy.

13th January 2012, 21:21	#6 (permalink)
Skywarden Reserve Team Player Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lurking on the periphery of my vision Posts: 4,195	The Pirate Bay chaps also told the court that they weren't storing data - to no avail of course. Poor Richard has no legs to stand on, on this one. At least his judge or jury wasn't from the music industry like in the TPB case.

13th January 2012, 21:29	#8 (permalink)
Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 16,051	From what I understand this guy ran a popular website directing traffic to illegal download sites and made thousands from it in advertising revenue, and when this site was closed down for such reasons he opened up another. It is difficult to feel sorry for this guy - it isn't as if he sent a copy of weblinks to somebody in an email, when the authorities had his website closed down that should have told him all too clearly that the law was not on his side yet he carried on regardless.

13th January 2012, 22:18	#12 (permalink)
RyanGoggs tasted George Michael Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,835	Is it wrong to send basically direct people to illegal content? I suppose they could jail him on the grounds of aiding criminal activity. Has their ever been a case where an end user has been arrested for downloading illegal films and media? As surely these are the people actually committing the crime along with the people hosting the content.

13th January 2012, 23:05	#15 (permalink)
surf Reserve Team Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: In the wilderness Posts: 3,913	He'll double* the average IQ of the US prison population. *Obvious hyperbole

14th January 2012, 00:14	#18 (permalink)
Colin129 First Team Regular Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Aliens are in control of my tagline & location, but they'll never take me alive! Posts: 10,820	What's the situation with sports streams then? We all try to be subtle when sharing streams but are we putting ourselves/the Cafe/the stream sites at risk?

14th January 2012, 00:51	#20 (permalink)
Skywarden Reserve Team Player Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lurking on the periphery of my vision Posts: 4,195	The US (surprise) are working on a senate bill (978) rendering streaming a felony. Not sure what happened with the bill but you can read up on it. Then there's the case Tdon is mentioning. Can't recall the details but it has been posted here on the caf I believe.

14th January 2012, 01:21	#22 (permalink)
rcoobc Not as crap as eferyone thinks Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Corrupting West Brom Posts: 17,197	Does anyone remember when you used to be able to search like "file:mp3\|aac" in google and it would just point you to servers with those songs held. Those where the days. Now its grown up and has a secret laboratory where its building the space elevator, whilst all the other websites get taken down by teh man.

14th January 2012, 05:42	#24 (permalink)
Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 16,051	It is no excuse that you are only doing what others are - he should have known what he was doing was illegal, especially after the Americans siezed his first website yet he then has the idiocy to go and create a second website. Seriously, how did he think the Americans were going to react? When I first heard about this case I felt sorry for him because I only heard that he posted links on a website, not that he ran a highly profitable website with the sole purpose of directing people to such material and tried to evade the Americans in doing so.

14th January 2012, 07:05	#27 (permalink)
Wibble Ingadus Speramus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Centre Back Posts: 49,868	Utter disgrace. Stand up for your citizens I say. I lost a huge amount of respect for Gillard and Australian Labor when they didn't stand up for Julian Assange.

14th January 2012, 07:11	#30 (permalink)
Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 16,051	Stand up for your citizens when they break the laws of another country? Absolutely not, I didn't know it went as far as MJS said - I thought it was only implied that the Americans were onto him through closing down his first site but I didn't know there were actual warnings given to him.

14th January 2012, 07:13	#31 (permalink)
prateik First Team Regular Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 19,020	Is expressing disgust at torrents and warning people to stay away from certain links illegal too?

14th January 2012, 08:05	#32 (permalink)
Wibble Ingadus Speramus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Centre Back Posts: 49,868	So if Iran ask for the owners of a web site that provides information where to get pornography from to be extradited to Iran because they break Iranian laws you think we should comply? Perhaps only if they warn the site owners they are breaking Iranian law first? Or if China want the owners of a web site indexing anti-Chinese web sites extradited? Extradition should only be entertained (and not necessarily granted) where the law was broken in the overseas country and then only if that alleged offense is a major crime in the host country.

14th January 2012, 09:30	#34 (permalink)
surf Reserve Team Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: In the wilderness Posts: 3,913	We don't know that he hasn't broken a UK law. At this point, the UK authorities have not charged him. They could be keeping their options open and letting the US take the lead. Going back to your Iran/China examples, the Fergie (the other one) extradition request by Turkey is an actual example of a dubious foreign government trying it on, and the UK was never going to allow that one.

14th January 2012, 15:34	#35 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ex-Pat in Florida Posts: 14,985	I find it amusing he is getting referred to as a kid or student in the reporting of this story. He is a grown man that made a conscious decision to do something illegal for financial gain. After having one site shutdown and being warned he was up and running again within weeks. He wasn't doing this for the good of Internet users, it was greed that drove him.

14th January 2012, 17:29	#36 (permalink)
rcoobc Not as crap as eferyone thinks Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Corrupting West Brom Posts: 17,197	I find it amusing that he couldnt be prosecuted under EU law so has to be extradited to the US.

14th January 2012, 18:10	#38 (permalink)
RedKaos Banned Join Date: May 2007 Location: Dromund Kaas Posts: 12,843	Should face a firing squad.