TVShack admin to be extradited

[roachcoach]

Apparently we're now subject to US law whilst in our own country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-16544335

There's not an angry enough emoticon for this tbfh.

[Phage]

Cos it makes absolute sense to use a law designed for terrorists to protect some TV shows IP.
A good reason to never allow any such laws to be passed here or in Europe.

[aidanjt]

The extradition British treaty with the US is obscene. The US can basically demand anyone for any reason and judges would have no option but comply. It should be ripped up and tossed in the fire.

[blueball]

Before we get all high and mighty, he was allegedly facilitating illegal file sharing. If that is the case then he was breaking the law; I'm tired of hearing people whining about "he was only linking to other sites like Google does". Sorry but he knew what he was doing and "allegedly" made $230k out of advertising.

Now IF the above is true he deserves to be sentenced; whether here or in the US doesn't matter.

However, I agree with Aidanjit's comment.

[Phage]

I think it does matter where he's sentenced. Do we suffer 5 years in a US jail for file-sharing ?

[blueball]

I think it does matter where he's sentenced. Do we suffer 5 years in a US jail for file-sharing ?

Don't break the law then. Simples.

[Phage]

Bah.
True - but I refer you to Kafka. A crime can always be found.

[blueball]

Bah.
True - but I refer you to Kafka. A crime can always be found.

Which is why I always wear my tinfoil hat

[aidanjt]

Don't break the law then. Simples.

Better not rip a CD, then you'll be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It doesn't matter if it's a US president who signed it, you broke it, you pay for it!

[Larkspeed]

Well I'm sorry but if they convict him then they better bring of the board of Google on charges as well because Google will also direct you to illegal material.

It is not illegal to tell people where to get copyrighted material from it is only illegal to supply it.

If I tell a friend that the guy that lives down the street is a drug dealer and he goes and buys stuff from him I am not breaking the law him and my friend are.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

whether here or in the US doesn't matter.

How about we sign an agreement with Iran so that anyone who criticises Islam here should be should be sent there for punishment.

If he has done a crime in this country he should be tried here according to OUR laws.

If you want US laws you can emigrate over there or write a letter to your local MP for UK laws to be changed. It only due to the parliament act IIRC that the law got passed.
Yeah,for "functional" democracies!

Funny that the US did not enact their end of the bargain - I wonder why?? Perhaps beacuse they actually want THEIR LAWS to govern what their own citizens do in their own country.

Better not rip a CD, then you'll be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It doesn't matter if it's a US president who signed it, you broke it, you pay for it!

In Thailand criticism of the King can lead to prison. Perhaps we can also sign a similar treaty with Thailand too. Who knows it might help us with exports.

Then all you need to do is not to criticise the King in the UK as Thailand might end up sending you to one of their lovely prisons.

[roachcoach]

Before we get all high and mighty, he was allegedly facilitating illegal file sharing. If that is the case then he was breaking the law; I'm tired of hearing people whining about "he was only linking to other sites like Google does". Sorry but he knew what he was doing and "allegedly" made $230k out of advertising.

Now IF the above is true he deserves to be sentenced; whether here or in the US doesn't matter.

However, I agree with Aidanjit's comment.

It would seem not to be illegal here, no charges in the uk.


These are the same people wanting to basically control the net via SOPA and similar :/

[blueball]

The US can basically demand anyone for any reason and judges would have no option but comply.[/img]

Absolutely not true http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16041824

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Absolutely not true http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16041824

"The 2003 Act effectively made it easier for the US to seek the extradition of someone from the UK because the US would no longer need to provide a "prima facie" case to British courts - proving your case on the face of available evidence."

[Saracen]

I think it does matter where he's sentenced. Do we suffer 5 years in a US jail for file-sharing ?

No we don't. ...... It could be up to 10 years. And a fine which can be unlimited as well.

[Saracen]

"The 2003 Act effectively made it easier for the US to seek the extradition of someone from the UK because the US would no longer need to provide a "prima facie" case to British courts - proving your case on the face of available evidence."

And the bit that follows that ....

The Home Office's extradition review argued that there was no real difference between the US tests of "probable cause" and the introduction of "reasonable suspicion".

The panel said that both tests amounted to the basic standard of proof used by police officers in both countries to make an arrest.