Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
Neither of those statements are true.
In order for Britain to honour an extradition request, the requesting state must show there is an equivalent offence under UK law that could result on conviction in a sentence of at least 12 months imprisonment. See Extradition Act 2003, Part 2, section 137. ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/part/2) |
Which raises the question, why did a judge approve the extradition of the guy who ran a site that included links to copyright infringing content, which was deemed not against the law in the UK.
Either there's more to that case than was reported or it should be overturned on appeal.
What happens in the case of MU remains to be seen. On the one hand it appears they were following through on take downs, but other reports mention that they took only a single link down, leaving the offending files still available via other links. I know nothing about NZ law though, so whether that would constitute an offence or not, no comment.
A question this action again raises though with this and other domain seizures is, IF an individual or company is not breaking the law of their own country, should the US have the power to still seize their domains?