How exactly do we hold people in other countries accountable for US law? Isn't this US imperialist bullshit getting a little out of hand? And for what, to uphold the Entertainment Guild.<p>Next thing you know we're gonna be extradited to Britain for insulting the queen.
I had mentioned this before but I think it bears repeating. This case was the last straw for me. Aweful movies and bad theatergoing experience aside, I refuse to patronize an industry that targets people across international borders simply for having links on a website. And I used to watch some 8-10 movies monthly so I hope this case is worth it to the MPAA. Goodbye, hollywood. Your greed condemns you.
It's one thing to watch from a distance as the US legal system becomes more and more unnerving. It's completely different to think that even in your own home nation such as the UK that US law can cross international boarders and ensnare you. This is wrong.
The student has never been to America in all his life, yet the laws in Britain has allowed America to grab anyone from anywhere in Britain, and try them.
I hope that the appeal _does_ go through. This is a dangerous precedent for our legal system to be setting. I do not like the idea that US law can be applied to me here in the UK despite having no business in the US itself.
So true:<p>"[T]his sets a terrible precedent. If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US because of the content of their web pages hosted in the UK, why wouldn't US citizens be able to be extradited to Thailand on charges of disrespecting the king or to China for undermining the government by being critical of it? To even press this case at all shows either a fundamental undervaluing of the freedom of speech of everyone, including US citizens, or, more likely, a belief in the most fundamental of American hypocrisies: the idea that the rules that the US applies to the rest of the world shouldn't be applied to the US."
For their next trick, the IRS will be sending tax bills the to British citizens...<p>I hear dumping a ship-load of tea into a local harbor is a good way to make your point about this sort of thing.
"why wouldn't US citizens be able to be extradited to Thailand on charges of disrespecting the king or to China for undermining the government by being critical of it?"<p>This sounds like a clever point, but really isn't. Extradition requires that the crime is also a crime under the local laws. Which is why Swiss Bankers would never be extradited to the US for tax evasion, and why Americans would never be extradited to Thailand for making fun on the King.<p>I don't think copyright infringement should warrant extradition, but I don't have a good reason why I hold that belief.
So people can be jailed for copyright violations now? What happens to a corporation when it violates copyright? Seems we should all become corporations simply as insurance.
Quite despicable. Potentially ruining somebody's life because of alleged, highly questionable, loss of profit.<p>I wonder what would have happened had a smaller country made the same request.
Essential we want to ruin his life over nothing. The net impact of TVshack was certainly not enough to warrant extradition of a foreign citizen and sending him to federal prison. Unfortunately, its impact may have even been positive; encouraging people to be more engaged with new media releases. We're behaving like true bullies on this case and I think it does a lot to tarnish the idea that the US is a resilient country of civilized humans.<p>It's honestly quite shameful.
There is a Stop Extradition Fair UK Trial for Richard O'Dwyer" petition.<p><a href="http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk-trial-for-richard-o-dwyer/sign.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk...</a>
<rant>
I hereby demand that all US citizens that violated the law of any other country to be allow to be extradited into said country.<p>And also congratulation to "great" Britain to once again confirm that it is nothing more than the US' lap dog.
</rant>
The extradition treaty between the US and the UK would seem to be bizarre as hell. On the one hand, a person who hacks into US government computer systems isn't extradited, and on the other hand a minor and specious copyright violation does merit extradition.
I'm pretty sure extraditing British citizens to the US for prosecution is illegal. British citizens are subject to British law and British law alone. Hence, he can be prosecuted in a British court and if sentenced he might be extradited to the US but there's no way he can be legally extradited before proven guilty.
If he'd travelled to the USA and committed a crime, that would be one thing.<p>But he's a British citizen in Britian. He's not subject to US laws, he's subject to British laws.<p>If the British government can't be bothered to protect its citizens against this kind of overreach, isn't the british government failing at the most basic purpose of a government-- to protect people's rights?<p>The idea that a .NET or .COM domain name subjects you to US laws is asinine beyond belief. The only degree to which this is true is domain disputes or the management of that domain name. Nothing else.<p>A big part of the problem here is that US judges have become errand boys for the federal government, and are inclined to let federal prosecutors get away with asinine arguments like the claim that ".COM means US presence.".