TVShack....

carpetmojo · 03-13-2012, 06:34 PM

Another example of a one-sided extradition ................ and a controversial legal decision that cleared the way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-17355203

Quite apart from the copyright argument involved, this stinks.

Bilbo1967 · 03-13-2012, 06:43 PM

I particularly liked the following from that report;

"A spokesman said Mrs May had "carefully considered all relevant matters" before signing the order."

I can exclusively reveal the careful consideration that happened here;

Teresa May: "Isn't it important that we maintain the fiction of a special relationship with the most powerful country in the world for our voters?"
Civil Servant: "Yes"
Teresa May: "Stuff the law then. Send him over there"

carpetmojo · 03-14-2012, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I particularly liked the following from that report;
"A spokesman said Mrs May had "carefully considered all relevant matters" before signing the order."
I can exclusively reveal the careful consideration that happened here;
Teresa May: "Isn't it important that we maintain the fiction of a special relationship with the most powerful country in the world for our voters?"
Civil Servant: "Yes"
Teresa May: "Stuff the law then. Send him over there"

Sadly probably a more accurate transcript than anything she offers for public consumption.....

[ Plus, "don't bother me with this stuff, I have shoes to buy " .... ? ]

carpetmojo · 03-15-2012, 04:58 AM

Further on actions that are not illegal in the UK, but are allegedly so in another country, which is demanding extradition - under the terms of an arrangement that does not require presentation of proof of wrong-doing.
And this "arrangement" does not permit reciprocal extradition should the UK wish to do so, regardless of the gravity or nature of any offence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...a-7570386.html

For me, his is the result of the stupidity, perhaps worse, who knows, of individuals and departments, on both sides, who drafted, and agreed to, the ridiculous arrangements in the first place, without seeming to have read the big print and it's full implications, let alone the small stuff.....

tubemonkey · 03-15-2012, 05:32 AM

Simple lesson to be learned - don't break US laws.

And where does US jurisdiction extend? The entire planet.

carpetmojo · 03-15-2012, 09:03 AM

Yeah, but we're more risky than most, 'cos we're obviously a greater risk, see...........

All those sneaky double agents we got ............

markbot · 03-15-2012, 12:14 PM

If a US citizen in the US breaks an English law over the net...she would also get extradited to England. So I don't see what the issue is. The guy was facilitating piracy. If he were facilitating the piracy of English IP he would be tried in England (assming that is against the law in England). Since the IP was American...he is tried in the US. Justice is blind. It doesn't matter whether he is elderly or whether he is or isn't American.

He is still innocent until proven guilty.

murraypaul · 03-15-2012, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbot

If a US citizen in the US breaks an English law over the net...she would also get extradited to England. So I don't see what the issue is. The guy was facilitating piracy. If he were facilitating the piracy of English IP he would be tried in England. Since the IP was American...he is tried in the US. Justice is blind. It doesn't matter whether he is elderly or whether he is or isn't American.

The argument is that the standard of proof required is not the same in the two directions.
It is much easier for the US to get extradition of a UK citizen than vice versa.

howyoudoin · 03-15-2012, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbot

If a US citizen in the US breaks an English law over the net...she would also get extradited to England. So I don't see what the issue is. The guy was facilitating piracy. If he were facilitating the piracy of English IP he would be tried in England (assming that is against the law in England). Since the IP was American...he is tried in the US. Justice is blind. It doesn't matter whether he is elderly or whether he is or isn't American.

He is still innocent until proven guilty.

I wonder how he managed to keep from facilitating piracy of British IP. That would imply some sort of manual vetting of the links on his site, which goes against his claim that his website operated in no different a manner to google?

RainingLemur · 03-15-2012, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I particularly liked the following from that report;

"A spokesman said Mrs May had "carefully considered all relevant matters" before signing the order."

I can exclusively reveal the careful consideration that happened here;

Teresa May: "Isn't it important that we maintain the fiction of a special relationship with the most powerful country in the world for our voters?"
Civil Servant: "Yes"
Teresa May: "Stuff the law then. Send him over there"

Haha. That's probably all that was said, too.

murraypaul · 03-15-2012, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

I wonder how he managed to keep from facilitating piracy of British IP. That would imply some sort of manual vetting of the links on his site, which goes against his claim that his website operated in no different a manner to google?

There is nothing in the case about British IP vs American IP.

markbot · 03-15-2012, 04:34 PM

This guy probably uploaded some movies illegally to online storage lockers himself and created this TVShack "search engine" to link to them. I think they will get him for this. I'd bet my left nut he did this, excuse the expression. At the very least, they will probably convict him of pirating content himself....if his ISP cooperates. he had to have tested the links!

I think that if some person setup a website that linked to and cataloged merchants who expressly sold stolen jewelry at discount prices....the person would probably be breaking some laws. That's my guess. You are actually acting as a marketer of stolen property in effect. I see this as very different from the Google or Bing search engine.

JSWolf · 03-15-2012, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbot

I think that if some person setup a website that linked to and cataloged merchants who expressly sold stolen jewelry at discount prices....the person would probably be breaking some laws. That's my guess. You are actually acting as a marketer of stolen property in effect. I see this as very different from the Google or Bing search engine.

It doesn't matter if the links came about by someone manually finding them or an automated bot finding them. Putting them up on the next where others can easily access them is no more legal/illegal doing it either way. So if this kid is breaking US law, then so are the search engines.

carpetmojo · 03-15-2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The argument is that the standard of proof required is not the same in the two directions.
It is much easier for the US to get extradition of a UK citizen than vice versa.

No standard of proof as such is required from the US authorities, only a reasonable possibility of a court case - no requirement of guilt is needed.So no piracy has to be proved before getting him over there.
He and his family have always been perfectly content for him to be taken to court in the UK - if he was believed to be breaking any law anywhere - as the supposed offense was allegedly committed in the UK.But that would mean the authorities would have to prove he was doing something illegal in UK law, and any possible sanctions/punishment would be nowhere near as draconian as provided for in US law.
[ And this is but the latest in a series of extraditions for a variety of alleged illegal activities not carried out in the US.]

And it would not work in reverse in an exactly reciprocal manner.....

"...If a US citizen in the US breaks an English law over the net...she would also get extradited to England...."
Not necessarily so - firstly, the burden of proof of guilt is so much higher, and secondly, only certain crimes would be considered.
And can you honestly see the US public being happy about an American citizen being extradited to UK for doing something, in the US, that was not illegal in the US ?

Finally, and I profess no detailed knowledge here, his has always said his site was a "signpost" site - which is what Google is, surely. You may assume otherwise, but no facts have come out about anything more involved.
I still cannot understand how Google can, apparently legally, point the way to the same sites, but not this individual.
Ah, yes, Google is bigger, isn't it...

Bilbo1967 · 03-15-2012, 07:08 PM

To add to my second post in this thread, I have unearthed a transcript of a similar situation where the UK would like to extradite a US citizen;

President Obama: Would extraditing one of our citizens make us look weak to our electorate? And do we give a s**t what the UK think?
Civil Servant: 'Yes' and 'No' respectively.
President Obama: Thought so. Tell 'em to go swivel!

03-13-2012, 06:34 PM	#1
carpetmojo Wizard Posts: 3,117 Karma: 9269999 Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: UK Device: Sony- T3, PRS650, 350, T1/2/3, Paperwhite, Fire 8.9,Samsung Tab S 10.5	TVShack.... Another example of a one-sided extradition ................ and a controversial legal decision that cleared the way. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-17355203 Quite apart from the copyright argument involved, this stinks.

03-15-2012, 04:58 AM	#4
carpetmojo Wizard Posts: 3,117 Karma: 9269999 Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: UK Device: Sony- T3, PRS650, 350, T1/2/3, Paperwhite, Fire 8.9,Samsung Tab S 10.5	More on TVShack ...... Further on actions that are not illegal in the UK, but are allegedly so in another country, which is demanding extradition - under the terms of an arrangement that does not require presentation of proof of wrong-doing. And this "arrangement" does not permit reciprocal extradition should the UK wish to do so, regardless of the gravity or nature of any offence. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...a-7570386.html For me, his is the result of the stupidity, perhaps worse, who knows, of individuals and departments, on both sides, who drafted, and agreed to, the ridiculous arrangements in the first place, without seeming to have read the big print and it's full implications, let alone the small stuff.....

03-15-2012, 12:14 PM	#7
markbot Guru Posts: 612 Karma: 7511929 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: New York, NY Device: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite 2	If a US citizen in the US breaks an English law over the net...she would also get extradited to England. So I don't see what the issue is. The guy was facilitating piracy. If he were facilitating the piracy of English IP he would be tried in England (assming that is against the law in England). Since the IP was American...he is tried in the US. Justice is blind. It doesn't matter whether he is elderly or whether he is or isn't American. He is still innocent until proven guilty. Last edited by markbot; 03-15-2012 at 12:22 PM.

03-13-2012, 06:43 PM	#2
Bilbo1967 Not scared! Posts: 13,424 Karma: 81011643 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midlands, UK Device: Kindle Paperwhite 10, Huawei M5 10	I particularly liked the following from that report; "A spokesman said Mrs May had "carefully considered all relevant matters" before signing the order." I can exclusively reveal the careful consideration that happened here; Teresa May: "Isn't it important that we maintain the fiction of a special relationship with the most powerful country in the world for our voters?" Civil Servant: "Yes" Teresa May: "Stuff the law then. Send him over there"

03-15-2012, 05:32 AM	#5
tubemonkey monkey on the fringe Posts: 45,762 Karma: 158733736 Join Date: May 2010 Location: Seattle Metro Device: Moto E6, Echo Show	Simple lesson to be learned - don't break US laws. And where does US jurisdiction extend? The entire planet.

03-15-2012, 09:03 AM	#6
carpetmojo Wizard Posts: 3,117 Karma: 9269999 Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: UK Device: Sony- T3, PRS650, 350, T1/2/3, Paperwhite, Fire 8.9,Samsung Tab S 10.5	Yeah, but we're more risky than most, 'cos we're obviously a greater risk, see........... All those sneaky double agents we got ............

03-15-2012, 04:34 PM	#12
markbot Guru Posts: 612 Karma: 7511929 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: New York, NY Device: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite 2	This guy probably uploaded some movies illegally to online storage lockers himself and created this TVShack "search engine" to link to them. I think they will get him for this. I'd bet my left nut he did this, excuse the expression. At the very least, they will probably convict him of pirating content himself....if his ISP cooperates. he had to have tested the links! I think that if some person setup a website that linked to and cataloged merchants who expressly sold stolen jewelry at discount prices....the person would probably be breaking some laws. That's my guess. You are actually acting as a marketer of stolen property in effect. I see this as very different from the Google or Bing search engine.

03-15-2012, 07:08 PM	#15
Bilbo1967 Not scared! Posts: 13,424 Karma: 81011643 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midlands, UK Device: Kindle Paperwhite 10, Huawei M5 10	To add to my second post in this thread, I have unearthed a transcript of a similar situation where the UK would like to extradite a US citizen; President Obama: Would extraditing one of our citizens make us look weak to our electorate? And do we give a s**t what the UK think? Civil Servant: 'Yes' and 'No' respectively. President Obama: Thought so. Tell 'em to go swivel!

Advert

Advert