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

[aidanjt]

And as for this rubbish:Since he clearly had reason to believe that he was infringing copyright (based on the FAQ example earlier), and he was running a business (to the tune of >£100,000/annum salary), and he communicated [the location of] the work to the public, he has committed a crime under UK law (looking at you, Cat-The-Fifth ), and based on the criteria for extradition that Saracen posted earlier, which requires the defendant to have committed a crime under UK law, worthy of not less than 12 months' imprisonment, he is eligible for extradition. And that same criteria certainly does not apply to anyone advocating wearing of stripy trousers (or even minor offences in UK law) - 12 months is a long time in prison.

There's nothing in that text which suggests that a) he's running a business, anyone can run a website and pay for it with ad revenue, that doesn't mean it's a business or b) has infringed anything, remember, linking is not communicating, it's pointing.

And as for this rubbish:

It patently doesn't apply just fine, based on "not doing anything unethical". What he did was clearly unethical by most people's standards (can't speak for yourself, obviously).

Speaking of rubbish, US copyright law != ethics.

And, by the way, just because the CPS have decided it is not worth our (the taxpayer's) money to prosecute doesn't mean the US are unable to prosecute. The "US have priority to prosecute" rubbish simply doesn't apply here because the CPS does not intend to prosecute. Which is not the same thing as saying he did not commit a crime under UK law.

I'm sorry.. but.. what? That is the biggest load of nonsense I've read yet, and that's saying a lot in a thread packed full of US jurisdiction apologists. First, innocent until proven guilty, due process, heard of it? As shocking as this concept may seem, labelling someone as guilty actually requires more than a summery hearing by a judge! I know, unthinkable! Second, British law isn't applicable in a US court. You can't prosecute someone for breaking British law in a US court, and vice versa. Further, it is the job of the CPS to prosecute all violations of the law, if they don't have strong enough case to press charges in Britain, that doesn't give them the all clear to export people to a foreign court and jurisdiction which has lower standards for securing a prosecution. All of this is completely improper.

[TheAnimus]

There's nothing in that text which suggests that a) he's running a business, anyone can run a website and pay for it with ad revenue, that doesn't mean it's a business

Fairly sure that gets classified as a business.....

Otherwise my accountant has been lying to me!

[TheAnimus]

Further, it is the job of the CPS to prosecute all violations of the law, if they don't have strong enough case to press charges in Britain, that doesn't give them the all clear to export people to a foreign court and jurisdiction which has lower standards for securing a prosecution. All of this is completely improper.

No this is not how it works.

When you actually need the law to protect you, I can almost guarantee the words you will hear are "this is a civil matter".

I suggest you either read up on law, or maybe, just maybe, as a VERY least, read just Saracens posts.

[aidanjt]

No this is not how it works.

Would you care to tell me how it works, then, TheAnimus Esq.?

When you actually need the law to protect you, I can almost guarantee the words you will hear are "this is a civil matter".

Huh?

I suggest you either read up on law, or maybe, just maybe, as a VERY least, read just Saracens posts.

I've read Saracen's posts, in case it escaped your notice, I've disagreed with a number of things he's said.

[TheAnimus]

Would you care to tell me how it works, then, TheAnimus Esq.?

The CPS does not solve all matters of injustice or even prosecute every kind of illegal activity.

Huh?

I chuffing hate the legal system in the UK, I get taxed heavily but have massive costs doing business, so long as someone is smart and only transgresses the law on civil matters against small people they can get away with it. That comment is more of a rant, but if you understand the difference between criminal and civil law it makes some sense (thou many will disagree with my POV).

I've read Saracen's posts, in case it escaped your notice, I've disagreed with a number of things he's said.

But he's quoting the judgement! Your just saying he hasn't broken a UK law, which appears quite frankly wrong.

You assert its not a business. Someone making £15k pcm from something isn't a business now?! Hell he probably wouldn't even be able to qualify for the small business flat rate VAT scheme! As someone who has run a small business I can't understand how your able to claim its not.

[Zak33]

thank you for apologising

takes a man to be a man,

'spect.

(do it again and it all comes raining down )

[aidanjt]

The CPS does not solve all matters of injustice or even prosecute every kind of illegal activity.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that it's their job to solve cases.

I chuffing hate the legal system in the UK, I get taxed heavily but have massive costs doing business, so long as someone is smart and only transgresses the law on civil matters against small people they can get away with it. That comment is more of a rant, but if you understand the difference between criminal and civil law it makes some sense (thou many will disagree with my POV).But he's quoting the judgement! Your just saying he hasn't broken a UK law, which appears quite frankly wrong.

Again, innocent until proven guilty.

You assert its not a business. Someone making £15k pcm from something isn't a business now?! Hell he probably wouldn't even be able to qualify for the small business flat rate VAT scheme! As someone who has run a small business I can't understand how your able to claim its not.

He wasn't selling a service nor products to customers, so he wouldn't be VAT registered, or likely, registered in any way beyond personal income, would he? That's the point, there's no applicable organisational aspect here which an actual business. This is bureaucrats stretching the letter of the law beyond breaking point, and the only reason why it continues is because everyone in government are more concerned with keeping big content happy and plush than protecting the people.

[TheAnimus]

Which is irrelevant to the fact that it's their job to solve cases.

No its really not. Just as they've reminded me with some fraud I've been victim too, the fraudster knows this and has offered me about £1k below what I'd get if I took him to court, given the risk of legal costs not been awarded, sadly I've had to take it.

The legal system doesn't work how you think it does. I am no lawyer, in fact as a engineer I HATE the law because its ugly and open to confusion....

Again, innocent until proven guilty.

Doesn't work like that for extradition, feel free to be upset about that, but I'd suggest reading up on it before saying this case is an outrage. As I've said before in this thread the agreement Tony signed us up to was a really bad deal.

He wasn't selling a service nor products to customers, so he wouldn't be VAT registered, or likely, registered in any way beyond personal income, would he? That's the point, there's no applicable organisational aspect here which an actual business. This is bureaucrats stretching the letter of the law beyond breaking point, and the only reason why it continues is because everyone in government are more concerned with keeping big content happy and plush than protecting the people.

He should most certainly be registered as a LTD company or similar, else he will have been paying about 60%+ of his income in tax. Sole Traders are also liable. I can't imagine why an accountant wouldn't have set up a LTD company, its exactly what you'd expect for this kind of entity (not just because of the libability, it also makes things simpler!)

My point is £15k income is really not bad for a small business, the idea of using the point about flat rate vat is its a milestone when the inland revenue (or a third of it) considers you 'large'.

He had a large company, which delt soley in a method for helping people find pirated material. Kinda think 2A covers that. But then I'm just some dude on the internet, its not like the judge thought that way. Oh wait a second, he did! But why would we take the opinion of a judge when there is someone who is confused as to what the CPS is for, and we can take their word.

[Scribe]

I'm sorry it was out of line but just look.

We've got all these people saying he didn't break the law!?

How do they get to that conclusion, a judge thinks he has broken UK law....

Simple, judges disagree and vary in opinion often. Despite actual money being made from his website, he is not "A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public" - he has not communicated the work and is thus isn't such a person, it's pretty simple, the points below are sub-points and shouldn't be considered if the primary point isn't correct.

The fact that he's generating business might get him on another point in the law, such as 1d (ii) - by exposing the content, but unsurprisingly enough, all other points in the act don't carry extraditable sentences. It's also very suspicious that 2a, inserted in 2003 to specifically carry an extended sentence was done so around the formation of the US expedition agreement, suggesting that 2a may be such a law that does not directly reflect British interests or is disproportionate to a typical British copyright sentence.

It's not surprising that the Judge focused on 2a though is it, he had to stare at those lines of text until he found some twisted meaning as they're the only lines that would have allowed extradition, as opposed to looking at other points to see if he instead falls into another category of infringement, which would serve him a three month sentence + a level 5 fine, which seems to fit the magnitude of the crime somewhat more accurately.

[TheAnimus]

depends what is ment by communicating work to the public.

if I take £2 and then tell you there is a pirate DVD on the floor behind that bush for instance, all I've done is linked to it.

if you claim its the actually transmission of the torrent file? or the rendering of it on a screen. Depending on how you view communicating you could enterprete it either way. Afterall the data sent via TCP/IP is meaningless if its not been decoded properly. Its a problem with law, its ugly and inprescise.

Given that his incomes where almost entirely dependant on linking to copyrighted works, and his T&C were somewhat open about this, I don't think he is likely to be found not breaking 2A.

[HSK]

:O 15K a month? How accurate do you think that is? Or is it most likely exaggerated...

[Scribe]

depends what is ment by communicating work to the public.

if I take £2 and then tell you there is a pirate DVD on the floor behind that bush for instance, all I've done is linked to it.

if you claim its the actually transmission of the torrent file? or the rendering of it on a screen. Depending on how you view communicating you could enterprete it either way. Afterall the data sent via TCP/IP is meaningless if its not been decoded properly. Its a problem with law, its ugly and inprescise.

Given that his incomes where almost entirely dependant on linking to copyrighted works, and his T&C were somewhat open about this, I don't think he is likely to be found not breaking 2A.

'communicating THE work', not communicating the location of the work, there's nothing for interpretation there at all, he didn't transmit content in any shape or form, even with an embedded video (I don't know if that's what was on the site), the content can lay elsewhere and transmission does not take place between the user and the site the player app was provided on, it's just a local player app with an address. You also have the other issue that money gained was not taken from users of infringement but given by advertising companies, this is benefiting but not selling which limits other liable points.

Sure, he managed to make more money than the average enabler thanks to the power of advertising, but that shouldn't affect the magnitude of the crime, which did not pocket user money and thus remains a matter primarily for moral debate as opposed to collateral compensation, which the courts typically weigh up.

[TheAnimus]

'communicating THE work', not communicating the location of the work, there's nothing for interpretation there at all, he didn't transmit content in any shape or form, even with an embedded video (I don't know if that's what was on the site), the content can lay elsewhere and transmission does not take place between the user and the site the player app was provided on, it's just a local player app with an address. You also have the other issue that money gained was not taken from users of infringement but given by advertising companies, this is benefiting but not selling which limits other liable points.

In the course of the business is the important bit, not how the money was aquired. Could it be suggested that a site which housed ONLY links to illegal content had its advertising revenue as central to the business of peddling links? If yes then it could fit the description.

The other problem comes with what is a link, when is it communicating 'the work'. If I sent you a useless blob, its fine, but when decyphered its a copywrited work, have I commicated the work by sending the chypertext?! Afterall without the key its useless.

This is why I dislike law, its to ambigious, in this case I suppose you could choose to understand communicate the work to mean to be a link in the communication of the work chain, to have a reference to it.

We have seen that the whole "its just a link" thing hasn't stood up previously in UK law, take for instance newzbin (which the ruling did suprise me a little bit as I'd assumed that they hosted no illegal files themselves they where not doing anything illegal, but I learnt something from that ruling!)

[miniyazz]

There's nothing in that text which suggests that a) he's running a business, anyone can run a website and pay for it with ad revenue, that doesn't mean it's a business or b) has infringed anything, remember, linking is not communicating, it's pointing.

com·mu·ni·ca·tion
noun /kəˌmyo͞onəˈkāSHən/ 
communications, plural

The imparting or exchanging of information or news
- direct communication between the two countries will produce greater understanding
- at the moment I am in communication with London

A letter or message containing such information or news

Pretty sure he met the definition of communicating..

I'm sorry.. but.. what? That is the biggest load of nonsense I've read yet, and that's saying a lot in a thread packed full of US jurisdiction apologists. First, innocent until proven guilty, due process, heard of it? As shocking as this concept may seem, labelling someone as guilty actually requires more than a summery hearing by a judge! I know, unthinkable! Second, British law isn't applicable in a US court. You can't prosecute someone for breaking British law in a US court, and vice versa. Further, it is the job of the CPS to prosecute all violations of the law, if they don't have strong enough case to press charges in Britain, that doesn't give them the all clear to export people to a foreign court and jurisdiction which has lower standards for securing a prosecution. All of this is completely improper.

British law doesn't have to be applicable in a US court. If you'd read Saracen's earlier post (which has been pointed out) you would know that for a valid extradition request, the alleged crime has to be a crime both in the country in which it happened, i.e. British law, and in the country requesting extradition, i.e. the US - where he will be tried in a US court under US law. And the person does not need to have been proven guilty, only reasonable grounds for suspecting it.. hence the point of a trial.
No, that's not the job of the CPS. There are a number of reasons why they might not choose to prosecute even if they have sufficient evidence.. including 'not in the public interest'.

If the case does pass the evidential test, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

I'm afraid most of your statements seem to be based on incorrect assumptions, misinterpretations and falsehoods.

[miniyazz]

Which is irrelevant to the fact that it's their job to solve cases.


Again, innocent until proven guilty.

See my above post on both those counts.

He wasn't selling a service nor products to customers, so he wouldn't be VAT registered, or likely, registered in any way beyond personal income, would he? That's the point, there's no applicable organisational aspect here which an actual business. This is bureaucrats stretching the letter of the law beyond breaking point, and the only reason why it continues is because everyone in government are more concerned with keeping big content happy and plush than protecting the people.

'Business' does not strictly relate to a company. It is a generic word that also encompasses personal things, financial or otherwise, e.g. 'he had no business being there' (first example off the top of my head). It definitely includes income to the tune of >£100,000/yr.

[TheAnimus]

:O 15K a month? How accurate do you think that is? Or is it most likely exaggerated...

I'd guess they looked at his accounts, he might have been stupid enough to build a business on piracy, but I doubt he'd be stupid enough to not file accounts!