News - UK Student faces 10 years in US jail for copyright infringement

[Gitch28]

Seems the americans think their courts can go over and above all others, just like they are under the delusion that their country has any history at all, now they are claiming our courts aren't up to scratch. The country that knows the least of the world think run they it.

[Saracen]

I assume then anyone in possession of a gun in america is subject to British law and will be extradited over here. Oh wait, the americans think they make the rules don't they, most of them don't even know where Britain is.

Then you assume wrong, as you'd know if you even bothered to read this thread.

[lemony_fresh]

Thw whole use of the extradition law is becoming completely out of hand. How on earth would he stand a fair trial if he is actually sent over to the US? I hope that Theresa May does the right thing; extradition, in my opinion should be kept to terrorism cases.

[aidanjt]

You realise that 10 years in a US jail for copyright infringement means you'd get 6 more years for linking to an uploaded Michael Jackson song, 6 years longer than the doctor who killed him.

Food for thought when it comes to giving up your citizens to US prosecutors for something which falls way out of their jurisdiction.

[Saracen]

You realise that 10 years in a US jail for copyright infringement means you'd get 6 more years for linking to an uploaded Michael Jackson song, 6 years longer than the doctor who killed him.

Food for thought when it comes to giving up your citizens to US prosecutors for something which falls way out of their jurisdiction.

You realise that some copyright offences in this country carry ten years, too?

You also realise that just because ten years is the maximum, that doesn't mean he'll get ten years.

You also realise the difference between those two cases is mens rea. In the case of the doctor, there was no proven intent to do harm, no proven intent to do a criminal act, whereas the assertion (which remains to be tested in a trial) is that there emphatically was a criminal intent in this case.

So what you have is two entirely different scenarios - one of which involves criminal intent but no loss of life, and the other of which involves loss of life but due to lack of "due caution and circumspection", not intent. Had there been the same criminal intent in the case of Jackson's doctor, the sentence he'd have been facing would be life, at the very least.

And you keep saying that this falls outside their jurisdiction, but sadly, neither courts in the US nor, so far at least, in the UK agree with you. You might think they shouldn't have jurisdiction, but the court says they do.

[crossy]

Thw whole use of the extradition law is becoming completely out of hand. How on earth would he stand a fair trial if he is actually sent over to the US? I hope that Theresa May does the right thing; extradition, in my opinion should be kept to terrorism cases.

Agree with some of what's said above. However, I don't agree that extradition should be kept only for terrorist cases, (although if memory serves me rightly the UK government didn't have that much luck getting IRA suspects from the US back in the past), I'd also be quite happy to have extradition of folks convicted of serious crimes (murder, racketeering, drugs, human trafficking,corporate fraud/embezzlement, etc). Especially if it's a two-way arrangement - although is it just me or is there the distinct impression that the CPS are a load of useless ----- (fill in appropriate description here)?

I assume then anyone in possession of a gun in america is subject to British law and will be extradited over here. Oh wait, the americans think they make the rules don't they, most of them don't even know where Britain is.

With respect that's a bit of a daft statement, and it's covering ground already well trod?

Secondly, from what I've seen (via Fox News, CNN, etc) there's a good slice of 'merka that doesn't even realize that "Britain" or "The UK" exists - instead believing that the island off the coast of Europe is in fact called "England". A trend that worryingly seems to be taking hold over here - yes I'm looking at you in particularly Sky News (and now the Beeb too).

[aidanjt]

"MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought"
These are the people who're writing these copyright laws.

[crossy]

"MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought"
These are the people who're writing these copyright laws.

That was a nice LOL moment for a Monday morning - e.g. how dare these politicians ignore what the nice folks who paid them in the past ordered them to do.

Switching to serious, but arguably off-topic mode, I particularly liked the bit in that article that said:

The MPAA doesn't need a DC insider explicitly demanding the right to buy laws and buy politicians. The MPAA needs a reformer, one who helps guide Hollywood into the opportunities of a new market place. The MPAA needs someone who actually understands the internet, and helps lead the studios forward.

Which pretty much sums up my feelings - you would have thought that the movie industry would have looked on the music biz and learned the hard lessons that those business folks got handed, (although I'm not saying that the music business folks have reached total enlightenment!)

Unfortunately, cases like this one just serve to provide "evidence" for the hawks in Holywood who want larger fines, longer sentences and extended reach. Interesting also to me that other industries don't appear to have the same problems, or at least to the same scale.

[Saracen]

"MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought"
These are the people who're writing these copyright laws.

And that shows an obvious problem in the fundamental nature of democracy in the US, which is that it isn't as democratic (small C) as it pretends.

While we're on that subject, what about UK union bosses and the Labour party? A week or so ago, a major union boss in the UK responded to the "change" in Labour policy (which was actually a minor change in policy with a very cack-handed and more major change in spin, but that's for another thread) by severely criticising Ed Milliband's leadership style and abilities, and threatening to de-affiliate with the Labour party. .... i.e. cut off the party's funding, withdraw the money feed for campaigns. Sound familiar???

In other words, he threw a poop-fit because a Labour politician had the temerity to actually say something he hadn't been fed, and bite the hand that thought it had bought him.

Or, in both cases, you could say that people supported, with cash for campaigns or block votes/union recommendations, people they thought believed in certain things, and then threatened to withdraw that support when they felt they didn't believe in the same things.

In both cases, the problem is that the ideal of one-person, one-vote is corrupted by power blocks, be they money or influence.

What this really boils down to is that power talks. And power comes in many forms. One is union leadership, and another is, always has been and probably always will be, money. Anyone that doesn't realise money is power is really so dangerously naive they didn't ought to let outside without a minder, in case they wander into traffic.

The only surprising thing, to me at least, is that in both cases, those making the threats did it openly and publicly .... for a change.

[Phage]

Interestingly the Founding fathers of the US were against the party system. (Called factions then) They believed them to be a threat to national unity. Those men had Ideals. But we know what happens to those...

[Saracen]

Interestingly the Founding fathers of the US were against the party system. (Called factions then) They believed them to be a threat to national unity. Those men had Ideals. But we know what happens to those...

Even now, the party system throws up major problems.

For instance, there's a good argument that it's responsible for the UK's continued membership of the EU, and at least, the party's stance on things like a Lisbon referendum vote. Poll after poll shows considerable doubt in the UK over the EU. Arguably, it's why no party in power has yet had the balls to hold a referendum since the initial, highly loaded Common Market one - they think they'd lose.

So, there's a major issue about which we, the people, are being given no practical way to voice our opinions. Our only real democratic options are a vote, once every five years, on which party we want. And of the available parties, only two really have a hope in hell of forming a government on their own. And neither have offered the sceptics' any real representation.

This is only an example, but what we have is parties where you either accept their platform as a whole, or you "waste" a vote by voting for someone with minimal hope of getting elected, and zero hope of forming a government. The party then claims a mandate for all it's policies, without knowing, much less caring, what proportion of people actually support that policy. And even that assumes the party sticks to it's manifesto promises, and we all know what that's worth.

The party system is a neat way to avoid asking the people what they actually think in specific areas, much less take any notice of the answers. Effectively, it is a way of electing a dictatorship for five years, though hopefully, a reasonably benevolent and moderately competent one.

[crossy]

What this really boils down to is that power talks. And power comes in many forms. One is union leadership, and another is, always has been and probably always will be, money. Anyone that doesn't realise money is power is really so dangerously naive they didn't ought to let outside without a minder, in case they wander into traffic.

The only surprising thing, to me at least, is that in both cases, those making the threats did it openly and publicly .... for a change.

The difference to me is that it's open that the UK Labour party is paid for by the unions - heck anyone who's a member (me included) of a union sees that a portion of their dues goes to Milliband and co. On the other hand I'd argue that the payments to the senators and congressmen is not so up front.

With that in mind, I'm kind of pleased that the link between big business and politicians has been pushed to the front a little. This can only be a good thing for democracy, since as voters if you know whom your "elected representative" is beholden to then you can use that as a measure of their fitness to represent you. E.g. if your prospective representative is getting money from environment activists and you work in a nuclear power plant then you might view that rep with less favour.

Comes back to the old question - who should a politician follow: the businessmen who paid for him; or the electorate that put him into a position of power?

Sorry that this is off topic.

[Saracen]

The difference to me is that it's open that the UK Labour party is paid for by the unions - heck anyone who's a member (me included) of a union sees that a portion of their dues goes to Milliband and co. On the other hand I'd argue that the payments to the senators and congressmen is not so up front.

With that in mind, I'm kind of pleased that the link between big business and politicians has been pushed to the front a little. This can only be a good thing for democracy, since as voters if you know whom your "elected representative" is beholden to then you can use that as a measure of their fitness to represent you. E.g. if your prospective representative is getting money from environment activists and you work in a nuclear power plant then you might view that rep with less favour.

Comes back to the old question - who should a politician follow: the businessmen who paid for him; or the electorate that put him into a position of power?

Sorry that this is off topic.

Agreed, but my point wasn't so much about transparency, though I'd point out that the huge extent of the US lobby system is well-known. The extent of the lobby system in the UK is much less well-known, but events round about the least election made clear it's far from non-existent.

As background, .... Wikipedia ...

Dispatches lobbyist investigation
Main article: 2010 Cash for Influence Scandal

Hoon was one of the MPs named in the 2010 sting operation on political lobbying by the Channel 4 Dispatches programme. Hoon told an undercover reporter that he wanted to translate his knowledge and contacts into something that "frankly makes money".[25] On 22 March 2010 it was announced he had been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party, alongside Patricia Hewitt and Stephen Byers.[26] Consequently, he was dropped from the NATO "group of 12" committee that had been drafting NATO's new mission statement.[citation needed]

Westland

In May 2011 Geoff Hoon took on a role with AgustaWestland. The same company had been awarded a £1.7billion contract when he was Defence Secretary. AgustaWestland was named as the preferred bidder for the Future Lynx project to deliver a new generation of helicopters to the MoD in March 2005 when Hoon was Defence Secretary. No other firms were invited to bid, despite claims that other manufacturers could have provided an alternative more cheaply and quickly.[27]

Granted, we can't take Wikipedia as gospel, for obvious reasons, but that accords pretty well with my memory of those events.

So, lobbying, which in the above case appears to equate to (an attempt) to sell political influence for cash. That tallies pretty well with what the MPAA appear to be saying, and certainly with the allegations about politicians "staying bought".

But the broader point is that the unions seem to think that because they helped elect Miliband, that gives them some special right to determine policy. My point was that the unions might have put Miliband in power as Labour leader, but he was elected to represent his constituents, not Union interests and attempting to exert pressure on Labour by threatening to de-affiliate from the party is exactly the same type of anti-democratic disgrace as the MPAA threatening to withdraw funding if they don't get what we want.

It is, IMHO obviously, perfectly fine for anyone, be it me or a business or a union to help fund a politician that believes in the things they believe in and that they therefore wish to support. It's also perfectly fine to withdraw that funding help if you no longer wish to support that politician. What's not fine, IMHO, is to threaten to withdraw funding because that politician isn't doing what you want.

Now, if I withdraw any political funding I might make, no MP let alone a party is going to notice, much less care. But suppose I was a billionaire, and told Labour .... "I'll triple whatever funds you currently get from the unions if you do <insert a policy requirement that favours me>. The unions, quite rightly, would be incandescent that I usurped their influence. So, if they've got an iota of common sense, would anyone that actually voted for Labour.

The same, of course, applies if I told a Conservative government (or Tory party in opposition) the same thing.

The allegation is often made that the Tories are in the pockets of big business, and/or the City. To what extent it's true I don't know, but personally, I'd be astonished if there wasn't an element of truth in it.

In any of these cases, be it Labour union funding, Tory business funding, or MPAA funding of US politicians, it subverts the political process if the voters aren't properly represented because someone, anyone, is buying, or even simply expecting to buy, influence. And that applies to union bosses every bit as much as it applies to the MPAA. It's a disgrace in either case.

So while an attempt by the MPAA to buy influence is disgraceful, we can't exactly sit on our moral high horse about it, since it clearly happens here too, and the Hewitt/Hoon/Byers sting, and recent public announcements by union bosses are merely the more overt recent examples.

In my opinion, it would be politically naive on a colossal scale to think this doesn't go on, extensively, here as in the US, though the US lobbying industry has raised it to an art form that certainly makes Hoon and those other clowns look like rank amateurs.

[crossy]

(Excellent post regretfully snipped to save space) In my opinion, it would be politically naive on a colossal scale to think this doesn't go on, extensively, here as in the US, though the US lobbying industry has raised it to an art form that certainly makes Hoon and those other clowns look like rank amateurs.

Whether it's my jaundiced perception, or not, I'd also argue that big business has a greater hold in the US than here - witness the lack of wholehearted support for US-style copyright and patent laws.

On the other hand here in the UK there seems to be more flip-floppery between political points of view. Last government tried to nationalise, whereas this one prefers to privatise (including some services which imho shouldn't be)

If my perception in the first paragraph is correct, then it's self-evident why a "corporate mugger" such as this UK student is being more actively pursued by the US than the UK. Or perhaps, to misquote you, maybe the DoJ has their s**t together and the CPS are "rank amateurs" in this sphere.

(I won't offer my thanks for a well written and informative post because, to be honest, I'd have to search long and hard in an effort to find one of yours that wasn't well written and/or informative)

[roachcoach]

Not sure if it was this thread or the other one, but a pair from the UK were arrested in a US airport on landing because of a twitter joke/misunderstanding.

From what I read it looks a bit similar to the chap with the robin hood airport.