×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

340 comments

Pointless (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468192)

TV-shack, seriously? That was a link site and a damn good one. What kind of twunt is trying to prosecute this guy for running a really good site.

Re:Pointless (5, Informative)

milkmage (795746) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468296)

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
ICE is the twunt... yes that ICE.

The website was seized by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. O'Dywer was arrested on May 23, brought to Wandsworth prison and then released on a £3,000 bail paid by his aunt.

I assume the US wants him extradited so he can face prosecution HERE.

Re:Pointless (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468456)

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
ICE is the twunt... yes that ICE.

The website was seized by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. O'Dywer was arrested on May 23, brought to Wandsworth prison and then released on a £3,000 bail paid by his aunt.

I assume the US wants him extradited so he can face prosecution HERE.

Isn't extradition more of a murder type thing?
Copyright? What a joke.

Re:Pointless (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468618)

Prosecution for what?? There was no mention of him doing anything wrong in the article.

Re:Pointless (5, Insightful)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468864)

Soviet prisoner #1: So how long is your sentence?
Soviet prisoner #2: 10 years.
Soviet prisoner #1: What did you do?
Soviet prisoner #2: Nothing.
Soviet prisoner #1: You liar! "Nothing" gets you 20 years under the PATRIOT ACT.

Re:Pointless (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468804)

The US wants him extradited so they can prosecute him for alleged crimes in the UK?
I didn't know the US jurisdiction stretched that far over their borders.

Jurisdiction (4, Informative)

Robadob (1800074) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468210)

Do they have any jurisdiction over this? It wasn't even hosted in the US.

Re:Jurisdiction (5, Informative)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468228)

The US doesn't give two shits about jurisdiction, they care about sticking it to the kid.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468406)

And this also counts (if he is convicted) as strike one of the so-called 'three strikes' law in the US...

Re:Jurisdiction (5, Informative)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468454)

There is no "three strikes" law at the federal level in the US. There are multiple "three strikes" state level laws. But there are no state level copyright laws. So your post is kind of bs.

Re:Jurisdiction (1, Interesting)

UdoKeir (239957) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468708)

Re:Jurisdiction (2)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468756)

that's for violent felonies. the context of "three strikes" above was for three strikes copyright laws as in france.

although afaic any law based on a sports analogy should be shitcanned immediately.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468970)

that's for violent felonies

He raised his voice, that makes it verbal assault, and assault is a violent crime.

Re:Jurisdiction (5, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468462)

The US controls every domain name on the planet. Don't kid yourselves.

For a "siezed" website, it seems to be pretty up: http://tvshack.bz/movies/M [tvshack.bz] (beware of popups)

I had no idea this site existed. Hello Streisand effect!

Re:Jurisdiction (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468266)

Being the greatest, best country God has ever given man kind, US law is God's law, which recognizes no jurisdiction.

This is how American Exceptionalists really think.

Re:Jurisdiction (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468288)

Do they have any jurisdiction over this? It wasn't even hosted in the US.

Well, since both countries are signatories to the Berne Convention [wikipedia.org] ... technically, by treaty the US is legally entitled to ask for the extradition.

Of course, if you were living in a country which said that linking didn't actually constitute copyright infringement, then the response would be "go away". If your country rules that linking is the same as infringement ... well, then you get extradited. So, depending on precedent in the UK, that's what will likely happen.

I think this pretty much demonstrates how copyright has become the big bogeyman that circumvents any sanity in law any more. It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

Re:Jurisdiction (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468350)

Getting authorities to act sanely entails that they understand a *tiny* bit about how these systems work. They don't. By the admission of many legislators they are getting all their information from lobbyists... which means almost all their information has bias problems.

We've come a long way from the "creme rising to the top" and such in government. It's purely face-men listening totally to corporate interests. And anyone with true unbiased knowledge are simply "the other" now and their input is completely thrown away.

He could get a judge that isn't on the take and actually cares about the facts and the best outcome is that it becomes a VERY EXPENSIVE fiasco... what is one more very expensive fiasco, eh?

Government=Cream? (3, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468664)

We've come a long way from the "creme rising to the top" and such in government.

Are you familiar with the septic tank paradigm for government (and politics in general)?
The biggest shits always rise to the top...

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468688)

I think this pretty much demonstrates how copyright has become the big bogeyman that circumvents any sanity in law any more. It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

I'm sorry, somewhat out of control?

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468782)

That was back when copyright infringement was a civil issue not a criminal one. AFAIK you don't get extradited for civil disputes.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

aeoo (568706) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468824)

It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

What an understatement.

Re:Jurisdiction (5, Informative)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468314)

Back when Tony Blair was in power he signed an extradition treaty with the US which means that if a DA files charges against someone, they can be extradited from the UK. Our Parliament ratified the treaty without inserting a reciprocal clause in the legislation making it dependant on your congress honouring the treaty.

Obviously your congress decided that having US citizens extradited just because a prosecutor in the UK fancied it them was mental, so they didn't ratify that clause. That leaves us with the current imbalance where your criminal justice system can essentially pull anyone out of the UK for any reason.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468368)

If I was a British citizen (or "subject" or whatever you people call yourselves), this would piss me off like crazy. Like, I would shit myself with rage.

Since I'm an American, I just find it hilarious.

Re:Jurisdiction (4, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468448)

I'm an American and I find this situation as well as almost every governmental figure from the last 8 years pathetic. Even the ones that were mostly good, like my Senator Richard Lugar, have been shit since the Newt Gingrich congress when everything officially went apeshit with partisan hate (ending in the most unnecessary impeachment trial in history). But even worse than the politicians are the general public who keep electing these idiot facemen time after time. We're in major trouble, kids!

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468776)

A lot of that would change if the states would change the districting and primary systems to be a bit more represenatative. Around here the party that holds a majority doesn't get to do the districting. Which means that boundaries over all tend to be relatively balanced. And since we have a top two primary with people being allowed to vote for whomever they wish in the primary regardless or party, we typically end up with districts where the election was effectively over after the primary, going on to the final election. So far the more moderate of the two candidates has won every single time that two candidates from the same party have faced each other.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

MattBD (1157291) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468758)

This legislation is already being used in an attempt to extradite the hacker Gary McKinnon, and it's generated a significant public outcry from that case alone. This one on top of that would just generate more publicity over this issue. BTW, citizen is the appropriate term - it used to be subject prior to 1949.

Re:Jurisdiction (2)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468940)

Actually, subject was dropped in '82. It's still around in the form of British subjects without citizenship or citizen of Eire who applied to become subjects in '48.

Re:Jurisdiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468506)

The US ratified the treaty in 2006. [bloomberg.com] So you guys can do the same.

Re:Jurisdiction (3, Interesting)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468870)

Right, but that doesn't redress the imbalance around the fact that the treaty allows for the USA to remove people from the UK for things actions that occur in the UK but are illegal under US law.

To highlight how crazy this is, there's a case of a somone involved in a bribery scandal being extradited even though the alleged crimes occurred entirely between the UK and Nigeria, just because he worked for a firm owned by Haliburton!

Of course it's right that such crimes should be investigated, but things like that are illegal in the UK too. If our criminal justice system doesn't see fit to prosecute, why pull them out to the USA to do it?

Having said that, our police and prosecutors are clearly and obviously corrupt at the highest levels (evidenced by the fact that our Tory government employed a former newspaper editor from News International who has been implicated in a phone hacking scandal, and his former boss even accidentally admitted to parliament that her paper regularly bribes police officers for information) so maybe you're doing us a favour. This is about the principal though!

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468698)

I keep trying to explain this, especially in relation to Julian Assange.

You don't get a free pass to commit crimes against a nation's people or corporations or government just because you're not a citizen and not in that country when you do it.

Jurisdiction is about determining who gets to prosecute you, based on where you were and who you victimized and what you did and how the judicial systems want to organize it.

Also remember, the Berne convention is an international treaty, and it likely spells out the procedure for this, streamlining the justification for extradition.

Re:Jurisdiction (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468798)

the Berne convention is an international treaty

Signed in the 19th century when copyright infringement was a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468910)

Updated continually since then and adopted by the United States in the late 1980s.

The distinction between civil and criminal law is variable, depending only on where the crafters of a law want to draw the line, if it is a line and not a jagged tear.

Re:Jurisdiction (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468846)

I keep trying to explain this, especially in relation to Julian Assange.

You don't get a free pass to commit crimes against a nation's people or corporations or government just because you're not a citizen and not in that country when you do it.

So you think the editors of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten should be extradited to an Arab country so that they can be beheaded for posting cartoons of Muhammad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy [wikipedia.org]

Re:Jurisdiction (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468920)

I don't think so, but if the Danish courts think so then it's a legal extradition and he can be tried and convicted.

I do believe Julian Assange should be extradited to the U.S. to stand trial for what he did. If the UK or Swedish courts agree, then it's a legal extradition and he can be tried and convicted and maybe even hanged.

Re:Jurisdiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468978)

The "victim" is probably Sony BMG, or Paramount, or Disney, or other movie producers.
There is no "where", they have offices everywhere.
And by the way, downloading is NOT copyright infringment, UPLOADING is.

When you download, say, a long essay from a website, and read it, you don't know whether that
essay was written by the website owner, and uploaded there with permission.
Say the author of the essay is very upset, does he have to sue YOU, or the website?

Re:Jurisdiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468730)

Of course they do. Like all good empires, they don't give a damn about sovereignty, justice or what's right. Unless it's in their best interests, of course.

See the ICC, Geneva Convention, Iraq, UN - or the more recent events in Libya for reference.

September 12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468218)

That's nearly 3 months to relocate to a country without an extradition treaty. Easy.

Re:September 12 (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468322)

Unfortunately, I don't think there's many decent countries that don't have extradition treaties with the USA. He could move to Zimbabwe, of course, but who the hell would want to live there? It'd be better to be in a crappy American prison than there.

There are countries, however, that are much stricter on who they'll extradite to the US, and for what crimes. Switzerland, I believe, is a good example of this. If they don't consider it a serious crime, they won't extradite. So they'll send you to America if you're a murderer or similar, but not if you're just a tax evader.

This kid should probably try to get asylum there, or in Sweden. The UK seems to be the USA's little bitch any time the US wants to extradite someone for something that's not even a crime in the UK.

Re:September 12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468382)

Thing is, it's not even a crime here in the USA.

Re:September 12 (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468512)

I don't know if having a bunch of links would make it a crime (seems doubtful, but IANAL), but there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement so you aren't entirely correct.

Re:September 12 (1)

sn00ker (172521) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468994)

New Zealand's law on extradition requires that the extradition offence also be a crime under NZ and be punishable by a maximum sentence of at least one year in jail.

Since our copyright law restricts criminal infringement [legislation.govt.nz] to "in the course of business" (ie: you're in the business of selling infringing copies), or "distribut[ing] otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner", he'd be safe here.
The penalty qualifies, but the actions would not be criminal under NZ law.

This is getting ridiculous! (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468230)

Waiting for politicians to have some reason is not going to work, other means should be considered by the general populate.

Let me get this right (5, Insightful)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468234)

So this guy is being extradited because he has a website which links to copyrighted content only? When did the rules change, because somebody should be talking to Google & Microsoft....

Re:Let me get this right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468404)

Search engines automatically generate links. Provided that they respond to DMCA takedown requests (and they do), they aren't liable for it. Presumably the student in this case manually entered all the links, and probably ignored a few DMCAs as well.

Re:Let me get this right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468720)

DMCA is an American law. Since when does a law in America have sway over someone who ISN'T AN AMERICAN?!

Re:Let me get this right (2)

Unkyjar (1148699) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468858)

Since when does a law in America have sway over someone who ISN'T AN AMERICAN?!

Since always. Otherwise foreign folks would have gone on killing sprees in America long ago.

I think you're looking more for "Since when does a law in American have sway over someone who isn't American or in the United States or its Territories?"

And to that question I'd probably say this type of stupid enforcement of law is the result of the buzzword "Globalization".

YouTube, Google, Facebook (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468238)

I got access to all copyrighted content via youtube, google and facebook, I wonder why thoses company(CEO) are not in jail, if this "crime" can send you in jail for 5 years.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468522)

I wonder why thoses company(CEO) are not in jail, if this "crime" can send you in jail for 5 years.

Because they follow the 'rules' which, presumably, this kid didn't do. Namely, if they get a takedown notice, they take it down. Those are the rules the interweb lawyers have agreed upon. I would bet my mouse this kid got some notices, ignored them and then the law descended.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468794)

Take down notices only apply to hosts. This man wasn't hosting anything, just providing links to files that other people were hosting. It's an incredibly stretch to suggest that he's done anything criminal. It's morally grey, but legally, I can't imagine how he's responsible as the materials are still going to be accessible whether or not he links to them. Plus, you can find them via Google, Bing and others anyways.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook (3, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468604)

Well, youtube, Google and Facebook do not exist for the sole purpose of activities that infringe copyright. They also take measures to ensure that the infringing material is blocked or that the copyright holders are recompensed for it.

TV shack exists purely to allow people access to copyright information without the copyright holder's permission.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468710)

I always wondered why/how blatant copyright infringement was allowed to exist on Youtube (and for years without getting taken down). Just to cite two examples: http://www.youtube.com/user/sbtech01 [youtube.com] (The Apprentice UK, Season 4, 5, ...) http://www.youtube.com/user/Mantray0 [youtube.com] (The Apprentice USA, Season 1, 2, ...) Those are actual uploaded episodes as opposed to linking. If anything, that Brit did them a favour by reducing the amount of time they'd need to find such content. What is this hypocritical approach to tackling copyright violation? Surely "a lead by example" is better, i.e. clean up Youtube and all other streaming clones (Megavideo, ...).

Land of the free - paradox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468244)

I find it more and more funny that a country which is known as 'the land of the free' sues everything and everybody and think they can determine on a global level who can and cannot do certain things. There's those countries I hope to never have to visit...

Re:Land of the free - paradox? (5, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468352)

Ever read "1984"? Remember how the war department was the "Ministry of Peace", the propaganda department was the "Ministry of Truth", etc.? The USA's claim "land of the free" is the same. It's just propaganda, and it never was true. At least back in the old days, it was only the slaves and Indians who weren't free, but these days it's everyone who isn't super-rich and politically connected.

Re:Land of the free - paradox? (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468372)

What's more disturbing is how all these other countries willingly act as its lapdog and follow its orders. Maybe if the UK and other places would grow a spine, everyone else could just sit back and laugh when the USA does stupid and ridiculous stuff like this.

I bet China won't be honoring any extradition requests for "crimes" like this.

Re:Land of the free - paradox? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468690)

I bet China won't be honoring any extradition requests for "crimes" like this.

The implication here is you're better off in China? Think that one through carefully. Yes, this is a dipshit thing (at least on the face of it, perhaps he's using the website to coordinate a world wide viral pandemic ... ) but China routinely shoots people that run afoul of the law, routinely and pervasively uses political oppression and nepotism, routinely and pervasively ignores the rule of law. Not sure you picked the right country to run to.

Re:Land of the free - paradox? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468906)

And this is different from other super-powers in what way? Oh agreed that China is no saint. But they never claimed to be, unlike the US.

Re:Land of the free - paradox? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468888)

Britain has been pussy-whipped ever since Sterling stopped being the world's reserve currency (to be replaced by the US dollar) and their empire went south. They really have no choice but suck up to the guys in charge of the game at the moment. It's quite amazing that a country that once dominated the planet is now much worse off than a country that never really had an empire and has been destroyed several times (Germany).

The funny thing is that technology seems to speed things up - the US dollar is about to implode soon and then the guess is who will that leave in charge. How's your Mandarin?

Re:Land of the free - paradox? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468378)

There's no paradox. America is not free. I'm sure there are at least a dozen files on all of our computers that could get us hung, using massively broad, and selectively applied laws.

Set A - Things I like to do.
Set B - Things illegal in America. (Largely copyright and porn stuff)
Set C - Things illegal in China. (Largely internal politics stuff)

Set A and B massively overlap, whilst set A and C not at all. China is more free for me. Americans can bang on about their constitutional rights till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fascist reality that is America today.

Re:Land of the free - paradox? (0)

azzy (86427) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468534)

What? The land of the free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy

Something must be done
About vengeance, a badge and a gun
'Cause I'll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
I was born to rage against 'em

Now action must be taken
We don't need the key
We'll break in

I've got no patience now
So sick of complacence now
I've got no patience now
So sick of complacence now
Sick of sick of sick of sick of sick of you
Time has come to pay

Yes I know my enemies
They are the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams

Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468252)

Why not use all money needed to cover the costs associated with extraditing the student and the trial and prison costs to instead pay your corporate overlords? I mean, we all know you're their lackeys so there's no need to keep up the silly pretense.

Maybe I'm just a hard-ass... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468256)

But I don't feel any real sympathy here.

It's one thing if you are linking to infringing stuff without meaning to... and in situations where that's the case, a C&D is all that it should ever have to take... but deliberately setting up vectors through which copyright could be infringed upon by others is just as bad as infringing oneself, IMO.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass... (-1, Flamebait)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468328)

>but deliberately setting up vectors through which copyright could be infringed upon by others is just as bad as infringing oneself, IMO.

You're just one of those idiots that would have any crime punishable by beheading, because there's no such thing as proportion.

--
BMO

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468394)

You're just one of those idiots that would have any crime punishable by beheading, because there's no such thing as proportion.

Well of course. Crimes are committed by criminals, who all deserve to get shot. But beheading will do if we're short of bullets.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468432)

Such a gross generalization is not only wrong, but I'm not even sure how you could have concluded it based on what I said, above... if copyright infringement is a bad thing, then I can see absolutely no reason that deliberately setting up vectors by which others might commit it should not be considered equally bad.

Again... key word here... deliberately. This may or may not be possible to prove in court if it came to that... but just because it is not always possible to prove that does not mean that it is never plainly obvious to everybody whether or not something was deliberate.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468400)

I agree completely - we should arrest anyone who puts a copy machine in a public library.

Re:Maybe I'm just a hard-ass... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468488)

They don't do so in order to deliberately encourage unlawful copyright infringement.

Dammit Slashdot! Please understand the concept of INTENT when it comes to law. It's really pretty damn important!

Linking == Copyright Violation? (2)

ZipK (1051658) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468284)

If this Slashdot article points to an Inquirer article that points to a website that points to videos, isn't Slashdot some fraction as guilty as the website owner? What is the decay rate for guiltiness-per-level-of-indirection?

Re:Linking == Copyright Violation? (2)

DaHat (247651) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468662)

Kids today... not knowing the implications of the MPAA v 2600 case over the DeCSS source code.

God I feel old... and I only turn 31 next month :(

Re:Linking == Copyright Violation? (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468844)

There is a decay rate you speak of, whatever it is - you can bet on it.

Extradite me :) (1)

Cito (1725214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468300)

http://icefilms.info/ [icefilms.info]

http://www2.re1ease.net.in/ [re1ease.net.in]

http://www.anivoid.com/home/ [anivoid.com]

I will await my subpoena

How many links is the limit for infringement? (5, Insightful)

Rijnzael (1294596) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468306)

I like using rlslog.net [rlslog.net] to conveniently find torrents. They host no copyrighted content whatsoever, only link to sites which link to torrents which in a sense link to a swarm of people who have parts of the file of interest.

I imagine that, just following random links on the internet from nearly any given site, I could eventually get to the site I mentioned above. How many links is enough degrees of separation? Surely if liability is introduced simply by linking to a website, you are liable for anything sites you link to also link to. I wonder how many government sites link to Google as their site search provider? Google can get you anywhere, so surely the government would in those cases be liable for linking to Google which links to torrent sites. And that's why this idea is completely absurd.

And how the hell is what this kid did worthy of extradition, or even a felony in the US? Our copyright policy is so ridiculous.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468542)

How many? Thousands.

I thought rlslog.net was mainly for links to the files hosted on fileserve, filesonic, megaupload, rapidshare etc. The website generates ad revenue. Perhaps the intent should be considered, not some bullshit disclaimer about the site helping you backup content you already own, or technicalities about what hyperlinks could do.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468786)

Aiding and abetting isn't illegal where you are?

When you figure out that it isn't, tell Tommy Chong's lawyers he shouldn't be in jail for selling bongs. Not for selling dope to put in bongs. Just bongs.

Fuck this thief (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468344)

I hope he rots in the cell and I hope the rest of your pirates get a boot in your ass. There's no call for this kind of shit. It's easy to be legal in these cases but you fucks think you deserve anything you demand. You deserve to have your nuts kicked in and put in jail for a while. Fucking whores.

Re:Fuck this thief (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468442)

You are implying I even LISTEN or WATCH to ANY of your RIAA/MPAA crap you've shit out in the past 10 years.

Hint: I haven't. Does that make me a criminal?

Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468388)

What is next? Extradition for violating software patents?

Who is paying for accomodation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468478)

I'm wandering why ppl from other countries going to be accommodated using US tax money?

Re:Who is paying for accomodation? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468928)

Yes it's obvious from your post that said tax money should have been allocated to education. Ahh priorities in the land of the free.

Google? (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468580)

Just saying if you Google "Watch movies free" and if returns the links for sites that allow you to stream movies for free, isn't this the SAME exact information being provided? If so Google could be prosecuted...however I doubt RIAA would like to go up against someone with a legal arm and financial backing.

It's the JEWS, stupid... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468656)

... It's the JEWS' content that this man is being extradited to protect. The eternal Jew... who never do a day's manual labour in their lives.

The U.S. government is run by Jews and works for Jews, and takes YOUR taxes for Jews, and kills YOUR sons and daughters in insane wars for JEWS...

Re:It's the JEWS, stupid... (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468808)

I think I speak for all Jews when I say fuck you.

In fact, I'm certain of it. Even though I'm not a Jew.

An idea forms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468670)

Given that cybercrime is apparently quite affordable (see a bit further down the front page). Could we get a fund together to cause some destruction to the crooks attempting the extradition? I'm thinking deletion of their supposed evidence, sabotage of their internal network, that sort of thing. Just a thought.

In America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468684)

I used to hate all the American's who acted like America ruled the entire world.

Then I found out they were right.

As a US Citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468696)

I find this appaling. Not much I can really do though, except write my congresswoman, which I've done before. She sends back a nice little form e-mail. It probably goes to the bit bucket; but other than turning myself into some kind of activicst, I don't know what else to do.

The State of Things! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468716)

Some Perspective...

So presently, we the US, have the ATF selling firearms to Mexican cartels furthuring violence along the southern US border, Ethics violations of sitting US Congressman such that their only recourse is to resign, are engaged in 2.3 foreign wars (we DO lob stuff at/into Libya...), probable economic stagnation in the job sectors and housing markets, increasing imbalance between median US household income and record Corporate profit, massive shortage of US Scientists and Engineers, are in desperate need of Immigration Reform, heading towards a singularity with Patents and IP requiring either reform or dissolution, endless bickering on the Federal Budget and what direction the US should take lest it get left behind technologically within the next decade ........

And what is the DOJ doing during all this? Shilling for the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY OVER FUCKING MOVIE links posted to a foreign website by a NON-US citizen, asking for EXTRADITION!

Someone please tell me this is a sick dream!

I will willingly pay money to this kids defence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468930)

fund if he needs it. I have also asked my MP to raise the matter in parliament. Do the same, or soon it wont be the admins of these sites be shipped of to PMITA penitentiary it will be the users

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...