×

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

276 comments

BREAKING NEWS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524737)

Jon "Maddog" Hall comes out [linux-magazine.com] .

The first of what is sure to be a deluge of Free Software comings-out. Tight butts, hard dicks, and splashing cum.

Re:BREAKING NEWS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524943)

Klerck, we miss you so much man :(

I admit, I was wrong ! (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#40525255)

First, it was the case of Assange, and now this

The whole thing reads like as if the government of the United Kingdom has lowered itself to the level of being a servant of Uncle Sam

I always thought that, Great Britain, ...

- a place which gave birth to the charter of Magna Carta,

- a place where the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of round table

- a place where the Bard (William Shakespeare) produced his world famous plays
 
... would be proud of itself
 
... would take its own national sovereignty very seriously
 
... would never kow tow to anyone, for any reason ...

After witnessing what transpired in both cases, I have to admit, that I was wrong
 

Re:I admit, I was wrong ! (5, Informative)

CrackedButter (646746) | about 2 years ago | (#40525281)

Nobody in our government gives a shit. They are a bunch of cunts.

Re:I admit, I was wrong ! (1)

buglista (1967502) | about 2 years ago | (#40525539)

Sad that this is modded informative, but accurate enough. The last lot wouldn't have been any better in this case either I suspect.

Time and Place (5, Interesting)

Dan B. (20610) | about 2 years ago | (#40524759)

So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited? Wouldn't that fall under persecution grounds for asylum? Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...

Re:Time and Place (2)

Barny (103770) | about 2 years ago | (#40524783)

Only so long as the crime is committed IN the country it is illegal in.

Re:Time and Place (5, Funny)

kraut (2788) | about 2 years ago | (#40524789)

> Only so long as the country the alleged crime was committed in is the USA.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Time and Place (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#40524815)

If I fire a gun from the England border into Scotland and kill someone, you can bet I'll be extradited to Scotland to stand trial for murder.

Re:Time and Place (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40524831)

Exactly. These people are supposedly guilty of the heinous crime of... copying! Totally worth extraditing someone over, and why not waste taxpayer money doing so? It's not our money!

Re:Time and Place (2, Funny)

GeekInComa (2675279) | about 2 years ago | (#40524867)

Shortly after I traveled the world and developed bad case of schizophrenia, I was also under extradition request. In this case, however, they got inside my brain and are trying to lurk me into visiting their country. I am now in mental hospital because of this trickery in my brains. What can I do?

Re:Time and Place (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525053)

Stop shilling for Microsoft.

Re:Time and Place (2)

GeekInComa (2675279) | about 2 years ago | (#40525085)

Are you saying Google is behind my mind manipulation?

Odd thing btw, I searched for schizophrenia and now Slashdot and every other site on the internet shows ads for schizophrenia treatment. It's really weird to surf the internet with other people now.

Re:Time and Place (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524889)

not copying, linking to someone who allegedly copied, so I guess if included a similar link in this post, slashdot owners would be locked up in Gitmo as well, wouldn't they?

Re:Time and Place (0, Troll)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#40525105)

Facilitating copyright infringement. The mechanism used is irrelevant, even if the mechanism is something as simple as a link.

The ISPs were facilitating copying. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525253)

Windows facilitates copying. The web browser does too.

If the mechanism is irrelevant, why are they not equally culpable?

Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#40525325)

If the mechanism is irrelevant, why are they not equally culpable?

Because intent matters.

Did TV shack have substantial genuine use that did not infringe copyright? Perhaps but this is something that needs to be established in court. The web browser and Windows clearly do have non infringing uses.

Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#40525721)

I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another. I mean why the hell should i shell out money to build a fricking DVR or add extra drives so my PC can do it when i can just use the net to find a show i missed and watch it whenever?

and I thought the whole point of the Betamax ruling was if something had a non infringing use even if others used it differently it couldn't just be banned outright? or did the cartels get that one tossed when i wasn't looking?

Re:Time and Place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525745)

They didn't even copy.. they just pointed out places where others had done the copying.

Re:Time and Place (5, Insightful)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#40524915)

If I fire a gun from the England border into Scotland and kill someone, you can bet I'll be extradited to Scotland to stand trial for murder.

Isn't the slight difference that murder is a crime in both countries, whereas copyright infringement isn't?

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being extradited for a civil matter before, although no doubt someone can prove me wrong.

I have zero personal sympathy for this guy. I read an interview recently in which he said he had spent the GBP140K he had earned from his website on "normal student things" like going to the cinema and buying pizza. Which is such a load of bollocks it's a joke..

However, he certainly shouldn't be extradited for this. If this had been the other way round, there is no way he would have been extradited from the US to the UK even if he had committed a real, serious crime.

Re:Time and Place (5, Insightful)

Dan541 (1032000) | about 2 years ago | (#40525009)

Wait until countries like Pakistan and Iran get in on this. All western women will need to be deported for stoning.

Re:Time and Place (5, Informative)

Pseudonym (62607) | about 2 years ago | (#40524929)

Interestingly, there have been test cases to this effect in Commonwealth countries. There was a famous test case to this effect in Australia [austlii.edu.au] , where someone fired a gun on one side of a state border (much of the decision was to decide precisely where the border was) and killed a person who was on the other side.

The murder, it was ruled, happened in the state where the victim was shot.

Re:Time and Place (1, Interesting)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#40524993)

Errr, you do realise that Scotland and England are the same country??? There is no reason to extradite as the Scottish policeman can just arrest you as you are still in the UK... Other than that and you are talking about a crime rather than a civil offence etc., good point.

Re:Time and Place (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 2 years ago | (#40525193)

Well technically Scotland and England have entirely different legal systems, and police/ law enforcement are not an issue for the House of Commons, but a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Mainly defense, foriegn affairs and taxation are matters for the House of Commons and most other things are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and legal system. If you want a more exact answer then read Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Re:Time and Place (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#40525207)

They have different legal systems though. And you would be tried under Scottish law.

But this isn't murder. It's copyright infringement. The physical location of the servers hosting the data, or of the client, or of the website, or of the defendant could all be relevant, but where he happened to register the domain seems to have as much relevance as where he bought his PC.

Re:Time and Place (1, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#40525249)

Scotland and England are the same country in the same way that Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland are the same country, in that they're not. Separate parliament, police force, legal system... The UK is a sovereign state, not a country.

Re:Time and Place (1)

chrb (1083577) | about 2 years ago | (#40525663)

Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland are the same country

That is a particularly bad example due to the conflict over that territory and the fact that, due to that conflict, there is nothing politically linking them apart from them both joining the E.U. in the last few decades. There has been no similar civil conflict over the union of Scotland and England in recent times. How about a different example: Hawaii and Texas? Two somewhat different societies, with different political systems, different legal systems, but also represented by a unified parliament? Would you say Hawaii and Texas are two different countries? It all depends on how you define "country".

Separate parliament

Parliament of the United Kingdom [wikipedia.org]

police force,

Not really. Different in name, but Scottish police officers can make arrests in England, and vice versa. It is common for police to move throughout the UK, and in times of civil strife (G8, protests, riots etc.) you will find police from London, Manchester, and elsewhere walking the streets of Scotland. During the England riots last year, Scottish police were enforcing the law and making arrests in England. This is nothing like the situation in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, where police officers from one region would have no power in the other.

legal system...

Yes, different legal system.

Re:Time and Place (3, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 years ago | (#40525265)

Errr, you do realise that Scotland and England are the same country???

No, they aren't. They are distinct countries, each of which is part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Re:Time and Place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524907)

> Only so long as the alleged act is a crime in the USA.

There. Fixed that for you.

No, really FTFY

Re:Time and Place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524927)

That simply cannot be true. O'Dwyer has not been to the US.

Re:Time and Place (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#40524817)

The argument is that this is illegal in the UK. Not totally convinced myself but this is what they claimed.

Re:Time and Place (1)

julesh (229690) | about 2 years ago | (#40525071)

And, by my understanding, that question is actually still to be resolved, and will be resolved by the appeals court.

Re:Time and Place (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524823)

Yes, if you happen to be in the UK when America takes an interest in you. Best avoid the UK like lava. Leave the Brits to enjoy their prison island.

Re:Time and Place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525601)

The want to split from Europe anyway.

Re:Time and Place (5, Informative)

wild_quinine (998562) | about 2 years ago | (#40525259)

Here are the important facts.

1) O'Dwyer never went to the US whilst running the site. He visited as a small child, but I don't think he has a stronger connection to the US than this.

2) The servers on which his service were being run were not in the US.

Most sensible people would therefore argue that he hasn't comitted a crime on US soil.

But it gets worse. The existing case law in the UK suggests very strongly that the UK does not consider what O'Dwyer did to be a crime. A similar site (TV links) was accused in similar circumstances and let off the hook, because it was deemed to be a 'mere conduit' (Like a safe harbour defense, rather than that deciding that *linking to things is not a crime*, for example).

Now a UK judge has said that O'Dwyer probably was criminal in this case, because he exerted considerable control over the site, and therefore cannot use the same defense.

But that's smoke and mirrors, frankly. The way we figure out if that is a crime or not is to try him in court, not to push him off to some corrupt nation where it definitely is a crime.

Re:Time and Place (-1, Troll)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#40525473)

So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited? Wouldn't that fall under persecution grounds for asylum? Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...

You are wrong on a few accounts. First, what he did was a crime in his own country, just that he didn't commit the crime there. And you don't have to set foot in another country, he just have to commit a crime there. A similar situation would be sending a letter bomb from London to someone in New York which explodes there and kills a person. You haven't committed a crime in your own country (UK), but you have done something that is a crime in your own country (murder). You haven't set foot in the USA, but you will be extradited because the effect of your actions took place in the USA.

Re:Time and Place (2, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 2 years ago | (#40525741)

Thank you for putting someone who has been maintaining a link site into the same category with someone who sends letter bombs and murderers. For a moment I was a bit unsure, thinking that in extradition requests the seriousness of the crime and potential differences of maximum penalties in both countries ought to be considered, but your post has made it quite clear to me that having a site with links to potentially copyright infringing content should be treated directly on a par with terrorism and murder.

The War on Youth (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524791)

Ah, one more small battle in the War on Youth. Let's see: cameras in the streets, ASBOs, patents that kill new competition, laws against drugs, laws against sharing, laws against resisting arrest, student loans, sugar-laden foods, credit card debt, loss of permanent jobs, the list goes on. The UK and USA lead the world in the War on Youth, which pits the old against the young. Extraditing a couple of "pirates" is just consistent with this theme.

Re:The War on Youth (4, Insightful)

progician (2451300) | about 2 years ago | (#40525261)

Strange thing, but there's truth in this. In an other discussion I was wondering that the current trend in demographics in relation to electorate politics creates a political system that is by nature becomes the enemy of the younger generations, and that is easy to show all over Western Europe. Most of the politicians and the people who vote for them were educated on the expense of the budget, that is, "for free". This generation benefited of the welfare state in every way, health case, job protection, rent control, council housing, cheap mortgage and property prices, so they could cut these services with the line "there ain't such thing as free lunch".

Ageing population is a real political concern for the under-thirties generation.

Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (2)

fantomas (94850) | about 2 years ago | (#40524799)

Theresa May is from the Conservative Party [wikipedia.org] , the UK's right wing major political party (I think this means something like Democrat in the USA?). Her party is very pro-USA in terms of where they take their political lead from and want to orient their geo-politics - as opposed to, say, a more pro-centrist/socialist European line. So I don't think it's too surprising that she'll be happy to do the US government a small favour on this one.

Some might say it's going too far to extradite UK citizens who are alleged to have broken a US law while in the UK, others might say it's pragmatic to work for closer ties with the world's largest super power when they come asking a favour (which is within English law: the Extradition Act of 2003).

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524839)

In America you have the the Republicans, who are the equivalent of our Conservative party, and the Democrats, who are the equivalent of our Conservative party....

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524921)

And to complete it, you have Hollywood, which rules them all.

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | about 2 years ago | (#40525127)

Definitely need the Yakuza to start up a turf war with the MAFIAA. Or for someone to actually start getting the process running to make an actual grassroots effort to bring in a few more parties to the US to make it feasible.

Most of the world has no Republican equivalent (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525455)

The OP was right: the Democrat is right wing in most of the rest of the world, the Republican are Extreme Right wing.

Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent (3, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#40525593)

The OP was right: the Democrat is right wing in most of the rest of the world, the Republican are Extreme Right wing.

That's because the US was formed by the "radicals" of the 1700's-1800's. The Founders were the OWS of their time. They deliberately chose to avoid the type of central-authority-heavy types of government they were familiar with in Europe that severely restricted individual freedom and kept people mostly restricted to their own socio-economic class, and came at the idea of a central government as simply a necessary evil that should be given only those powers and control over only enough wealth to carry out the bare functions of a national government, and leaving most all other governing to the States and local authorities in order to promote a diverse system where one can find a place that generally governs in a way to suit a particular individual or group.

This totally different outlook caused America to be the place and the culture that so many people around the world wanted to be like and/or immigrate to and become part of for so many decades.

So, of course, Europeans would see the US political landscape as extremist. It is. Or, at least, it was.

Not so much anymore.

More's the pity, too.

Strat

Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40525701)

While the modern conservatives believe that a central government should be given enough power to carry out only the bare functions of a national government... except for where drugs are concerned. And banning gay marriage. And regulation of pornography. And broadcast indecency. And funding of abstinance-only programs. And endorsing Christian religion through large taxpayer-funded displays and monuments. And restricting abortion. And about a thousand other things. The social conservatives started drowning out the political conservatives a long time ago.

Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525723)

Actually, no.

The USA was founded by religious and political lunatics that were expelled from Europe as being bat shit crazy (Look up Puritans, Quakers, Shakers etc).

The USA was always considered a backwards, "Johnny come lately" until the Europeans had the bad sense to blast themselves flat twice in 20 years. This left a vacuum that the two backwards powers (USA and USSR) swept in to fill.

America was the focus for immigration as compared to living in a bombed out hole in the ground in the Motherland it was seen as a step up....of course the rich, cultured and sophisticated Europeans generally stayed put, it was the semi-literate pig herders that decided to up and move to "seek a better life".

You need to get out more, stop watching Hollywood.

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (0, Flamebait)

bhtooefr (649901) | about 2 years ago | (#40525549)

The Republicans here in the US are often approaching Europe's right-wing terrorists, actually.

Literally, a lot of the right-wing rhetoric that gets spewed wouldn't look out of place in Breivik's manifesto.

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524843)

Theresa May is from the Conservative Party [wikipedia.org] , the UK's right wing major political party (I think this means something like Democrat in the USA?). Her party is very pro-USA in terms of where they take their political lead from and want to orient their geo-politics - as opposed to, say, a more pro-centrist/socialist European line.

If she's Pro-USA there's no way she's similar to a democrat they think the USA is the devil... metaphorically of course.

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524855)

It was Labour who signed that treaty. The UK is boned. On one side they have an authoritarian party, hard for the US, while on the other we have a coalition that is authoritarian and reactionary, with a raging boner for the US. Somewhere in the middle is the faint voice of people looking for representation, drowned out by an electorate largely more interested in finding affordable and god-awful sportswear. May Theresa May die choking on fog shit, followed by Blair and the rest of the soulless narcissists remaining in the house.

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (2)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#40524941)

Tony Blair is not the Labour Party, thank God. He is not left wing, never mind socialist. Most left wingers in Britain are opposed to US foreign policy, and would happily see him indicted for war crimes following his decision to support Bush in Iraq.

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (1)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#40525017)

Tony Blair was the best thing that ever happened to the Conservative party. He did more for them than Margaret Thatcher etc. put together.

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525673)

Right, except Thatcher won 3 general elections without Blair's help, and Cameron hasn't won any.

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (4, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#40524879)

So the UK will extradite car driving women to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal for women to drive, for better oil purchase conditions too?

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (1, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#40525505)

So the UK will extradite car driving women to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal for women to drive, for better oil purchase conditions too?

No, because (1) driving a car is not illegal according to UK law, so you wouldn't be extradited even if it was proven that she drove in Saudi Arabia. (2) because driving a car in the UK happens in the UK and has no effect outside, so she can't be extradited, just as even murdering a Saudi Arabian citizen in the UK would't get her extradited. (3) possibly not because it would be checked what is the punishment in Saudi Arabia vs. the punishment say for driving without a license in the UK, and if the punishment is deemed excessive, no extradition (so she would likely not be extradited for a proven theft in Saudi Arabia). (4) I don't know if there is an extradition treaty. (5) It can be decided that that extradition itself is a punishment which is too harsh for the crime, so you wouldn't be extradited for jumping a red traffic light in the USA, even when proven, even when the punishment is the same as in the UK.

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525015)

As opposed to the opposition party which is so pro USA.

Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525103)

The "Special Relationship" between the UK and the US was a termed coined by Winston Churchill in the aftermath of World War 2. Subsequent UK governments have highlighted their pro-US stance, particularly Margaret Thatcher the leader of the Conservative party who was in power from 1979 to 1990.

In 1997 the UK Labour party came into power, headed by Tony Blair. When war was declared in Afghanistan in 2001 following 9/11, in keeping with the special relationship the UK sent the second-largest military force to Afghanistan.

In 2003, the UK's entrance into the Iraq war caused a storm of controversy at home and abroad. "Leftist" politicians and a large percentage of Britain's population were outraged at what they considered to be an "illegal war". Blair's friend Rupert Murdoch published a special edition of "The Sun" (Britain's largest tabloid newspaper) titled "Chirac is a worm", referring to the French Premier's resistance to starting a new war in Iraq with an international coalition force.

Tony Blair ultimately sent the only other significant force to Iraq comprised of 45,000 soldiers, compared to the US troop commitment of 148,000 troops. These events caused a severe blow to the UK's world standing that outweighed any possible gratitude that the US could have shown for the UK's support.

2003 was the year that Tony Blair became widely known as George W's Poodle. An interesting quote from wikipedia:

Along with enjoying a close relationship with Bill Clinton, Blair formed a strong political alliance with George W. Bush, particularly in the area of foreign policy. At one point, Nelson Mandela described Blair as "the U.S. foreign minister". Blair has also often openly been referred to as "Bush's poodle". Kendall Myers, a senior analyst at the State Department, reportedly said that he felt "a little ashamed" of Bush's treatment of the Prime Minister and that his attempts to influence US policy were typically ignored: "It was a done deal from the beginning, it was a one-sided relationship that was entered into with open eyes... There was nothing, no payback, no sense of reciprocity" /interesting quote

The weakness of the UK Liberal and Conservative parties meant that Tony Blair remained secure as Prime Minister, until he voluntarily made way for Labour's Gordon Brown in 2007.

That's the historical backdrop for the point I wished to make, which is that Tony Blair did ultimately benefit greatly from his loyalty to the USA. He has amassed a fortune of 60 million pounds mostly since leaving office. The US bank JP Morgan Chase are reportedly paying him over $3 Million/year for his services as a "consultant", and he has a number of other highly lucrative similar posts.

So in conclusion, it is rather disingenuous to claim that the Conservatives are the UK's pro-US party, when in reality Tony Blair's Labour Party can be seen historically as the most pro-US UK government there has ever been.

Disclaimer: I dislike the Labour and Conservative parties equally, and I hold the belief that Blair deliberately committed certain acts during his Premiership in the belief that he would receive significant rewards for them after he stood down.

Swap Richard for Bob Diamond (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524811)

Bet they don't extradite Bob Diamond for overseeing the fraud [wsj.com] of vast amounts of money that may actually have done real damage to US citizens, never mind the UK and the rest of the world.

Re:Swap Richard for Bob Diamond (3, Funny)

Builder (103701) | about 2 years ago | (#40525225)

Only one way to find out - get an American judge to issue an extradition warrant. It's not like we just ship them over because we think you'll want them - you have to ask first :)

Re:Swap Richard for Bob Diamond (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525297)

Sorry we've gotten so used to pre-emtptive strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, New Zealand, that it seems a bit of cheek having to ask you guys first ;)

Re:Swap Richard for Bob Diamond (2)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#40525513)

Yes well, we wont extradite a child rapist either who actually committed a crime in the US:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9362298/Paedophile-spared-extradition-to-US-on-human-rights-grounds.html [telegraph.co.uk]

But create a website the Americans don't like? That's it, off to the US with you!

Apparently a controversal programme is enough human rights grounds to prevent extradition of a paedophile, but the high potential for suicide (McKinnon) or the fact a guy will have his life ruined, and run a high risk of rape in a US jail despite having committed no crime in the US (O'Dwyer) isn't.

Absurd (5, Insightful)

xenobyte (446878) | about 2 years ago | (#40524865)

If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US for breaking US law outside the US while physically never setting foot on US soil, why don't we see people getting extradited to all sorts of countries for breaking their laws while sitting in our homes in our own countries?

Second, extradition is for serious crimes only. Why wasn't the request squashed as it's only related to a civil matter of copyright infringement, not a criminal offense?

Re:Absurd (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#40524931)

Second, extradition is for serious crimes only. Why wasn't the request squashed as it's only related to a civil matter of copyright infringement, not a criminal offense?

It might only be civil in the UK, I don't really know. But the actual charges in the US are criminal, not civil. The MAFIAA have been steadily increasing the footprint of the criminal statutes regarding copyright infringement for decades now.

Re:Absurd (1)

julesh (229690) | about 2 years ago | (#40525101)

UK has a similar criminal copyright infringement law to the US; in this case the charge would be "infringing the right to "make available" copies to the public (either in the course of a business, or to an extent prejudicial to the copyright owner)"

Re:Absurd (2)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about 2 years ago | (#40525433)

"infringing the right to "make available"

More probably the exclusive right of communication to the public. s107(2A), Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1977 (here [legislation.gov.uk] ):

(2A) A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—

(a)in the course of a business, or

(b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.

...

(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) is liable—

(a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50,000, or both;

(b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

Re:Absurd (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40525711)

And there's always the classic trick, too: Charge him with some form of fraud or tax evasion. It's often easier to get a conviction that way.

Re:Absurd (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524999)

Wait, that brings up a thought - why can't Greece extradite Jamie Dimon & Lloyd Blankfein to Greece for their "crimes" at defrauding the country into massive debt? After all, if the US can extradite someone for something as "horrible" as posting *links* to *other sites* that contain copyrighted material, *surely* outright financial fraud ought to be extraditable. :-)

Re:Absurd (3, Funny)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#40525027)

This treaty was created to aid with the extradition of terrorists and we all know that file sharing and terrorism are the same thing.

Re:Absurd (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 2 years ago | (#40525171)

If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US for breaking US law outside the US while physically never setting foot on US soil, why don't we see people getting extradited to all sorts of countries for breaking their laws while sitting in our homes in our own countries?

Because you have to commit a crime in the country which asks your goverment to extradite you. Thus you can't be extradited to face trial for selling nazi memorabilia in the UK even though it is illegal to do so in parts of Europe. However if you ran a web shop and were selling within a country where it was illegal you could be.

Extradition makes a lot of sense in many circumstances. Hiring a hitman within America over the phone from outside America doesn't stop what you've done being a crime commited in America (blackmail would be and so is hacking). You can argue that we should never extradite anyone or that we should try people for crimes commited in other jurisdictions, both of which come with consequences, but whether the person was physically stood on foriegn soil or not really isn't that important.

Re:Absurd (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#40525531)

Because you have to commit a crime in the country which asks your goverment to extradite you. Thus you can't be extradited to face trial for selling nazi memorabilia in the UK even though it is illegal to do so in parts of Europe. However if you ran a web shop and were selling within a country where it was illegal you could be.

To clarify: You can and will be extradited within the EU for something that is a crime in one country but not another. So if you ship from UK to Germany, you can and will be extradited. If you ship from the USA to Germany, Germany will ask for extradition which will be denied; if you are then stupid enough to travel to the UK, you will be extradited.

Re:Absurd (1)

Torvac (691504) | about 2 years ago | (#40525669)

i heard some people in the netherlands smoke weed, isnt that illegal in the US ? what happens to people from the netherlands the moment they visit the US ?

UK did not extradite... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524959)

Be accused of copywrite infringement = UK extradite to USA
Be accused of rape = UK will NOT extradite to USA.

Umm excuse me but this just feels wrong.

Re:UK did not extradite... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40524973)

here is the reference http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/uk-extradite-man-accused-rape-minn-16674449#.T_KrLfHKmlg

Re:UK did not extradite... (2)

gazbo (517111) | about 2 years ago | (#40525107)

Going by the information in that article, I have to say I agree with the justices. That's a fucked up system you guys have got:

The justices in London outlined a litany of concerns in their June 20 decision, noting offenders don't have to be mentally ill to be committed; their offenses don't have to be recent; and in some cases, they don't even have to have been convicted of a crime.

As of April 1, 641 people were in Minnesota's program...some who say it holds people indefinitely after their prison sentences. One 64-year-old man received a provisional discharge earlier this year...Only one other person was ever released from the program, and was soon taken back into custody on a violation.

Re:UK did not extradite... (1)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#40525039)

It is wrong - the word is "copyright"... It relates to the right to copy rather than the act of writing the copy.

And the copy right owners still have the right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525293)

Therefore no crime.

Copyright has to be shown to fall under the criminal statute. Which is difficult. And the proof needs to be beyond reasonable doubt, which is harder. Therefore what I predict will happen is that he gets extradited to face a criminal charge without it being shown it's a crime here in the UK to do so, whereupon the criminal charge will be dropped and the civil crime used when he's already in the USA and doesn't have a chance to go home.

Re:UK did not extradite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525123)

If you're referring to Julian Assange, the US has brought no charges that are really crimes. It was Sweden, which the UK has an extradition treaty with. The UK would extradite if the US brought charges, but the US wants to secretly extradite him, torture him and hold him indefinitely without bringing any charges. They can't do this from the UK, but they can with Sweden. The fact is, he committed no crime. Leaking documents is not a crime, but they want to take him down with Bradley Manning without the legal system. Clinton is pissed and she wants revenge..

Re:UK did not extradite... (1)

Rei (128717) | about 2 years ago | (#40525179)

They can't do it from Sweden either without charges *and* without getting the stamp of approval from the UK, due to the EU extradition treaty.

Re:UK did not extradite... (3, Informative)

Rei (128717) | about 2 years ago | (#40525337)

To put it another way [europa.eu] : "4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law."

Aka, it still comes down to whether a British court would approve an extradition request from the US according to British law. So either way it's up to British courts to decide on an extradition request for Assange unless Sweden wants to be blatantly and explicitly in violation of its treaty obligations on one of the highest profile cases out there. The Swedish prime minister has already publicly pointed out that it couldn't extradite Assange to the US if it wanted to without British courts handling the US request according to their own law.

The only difference between Assange being in the UK and Assange being in Sweden is that he doesn't have to stand trial for rape in the UK. Despite all of the bluster to the contrary.

Re:UK did not extradite... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#40525605)

It would seem then, to a lay man at least, that the UK is attempting to set precedent for extradition to the US for infraction of US laws while not on US soil, just or not, as would be required for JA's extradition. I understand there are fundamental differences to each case, but since when did the government allow facts or common sense guide their decision and policy making?

Re:UK did not extradite... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#40525245)

Be accused of a crime where you'll be tried to standards consistent with the Human Rights act, and you'll not be extradited. We won't extradite criminals if they'll face the death penalty either.

nt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525031)

did an accidental mod, removing them with a post.

Sfrist psot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525141)

To get some eye aNd arms and dick Believe their SSE. THE NUMBER are just way over

Shit like this is how cynics are born. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525155)

Excuse me, I'm going to go throw up now.

Shock! Horror! (1)

Builder (103701) | about 2 years ago | (#40525211)

Internet petitions don't change governments? Say it isn't so!

And to say that his fate is sealed is to ignore a large number of appeals routes he still has available to him. Hell, McKinnon is still here despite YEARS of attempts to extradite him.

Re:Shock! Horror! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525517)

Current UK Prime Minister David Cameron came out in support of McKinnon before he was elected, saying:

"Gary McKinnon is a vulnerable young man and I see no compassion in sending him thousands of miles away from his home and loved ones to face trial. I am deeply saddened and worried about the case of Gary McKinnon. I am saddened because he is clearly a vulnerable young man with a recognised medical condition.

"I simply see no compassion in sending him away to serve a lengthy prison sentence, thousands of miles away from his home, his family and his friends. If he has questions to answer, there is a clear argument to be made that he should answer them in a British court. The Extradition Act was put in place to ensure terrorists didn't escape justice. It was never intended to deal with a case like Gary's."

After making that statement, allowing Theresa May to have him extradited would be political suicide.

Richard O'Dwyer OTOH has no such protection.

Scary (5, Insightful)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#40525227)

As Dr. Ben Goldacre has just tweeted, "it's the little things like extradition at the behest of a corporation that make you worry the whole world is corrupt".

I think that ship may have sailed.

A Very British Putsch Emerges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525229)

Dear dear dear dear.

And in time for the Olympian Games 2!

Oh dear dear dear.

The over reach of the US IRS.

Oh dear dear dear.

The Exchequer ... Harmony and Security of our precious ... Preciousness ... God Shave the Queen.

LoL

Lap Dogs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525345)

It wouldn't be so bad that foreign governments are lap dogs of the US government - if the US government wasn't the lap dog of lobbyists and big money political donors.

Ciaran Tobin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525409)

In related news Mr. Ciaran Tobin from Ireland still hasn't served any time for a car accident he caused KILLING 2 CHILDREN in Hungary.

The Hungarian courts sentenced him to 3 years during which he "left" Hungary on the grounds that his assignment ended, and the Irish supreme court decided against extradition.

Despite efforts of the Hungarian authorities, and despite the fact that Mr. Tobin actually offered to serve the 3 years in Ireland, no justice has been served.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0620/1224318257596.html [irishtimes.com]

Legal risk for innovation (3, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 2 years ago | (#40525479)

Congratulation, media industries : you clearly made your point : innovation in media content distribution will not be tolerated, even if it is done according to the laws.

If you were not already boycotting the people behind this, I think you can begin now.

Amazing.. great news ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525713)

Hope he gets a nice little jail term. Funny how all these sleaze balls load up their websites with all maner of shitty advertisments and make money over content they themselves did not create.

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...