[gateshipone]

(Original post by Iso Herrk)
What are you on about Google is completely different. Imagine via Google you couldn't find links to copyrighted materal (which is why most of these sites exist in the first place). So if someone creates a site offering links, surely it would most likely appear in Google. So Google is at fault for someone creating a site with illegal material on and it appearing in a Google search result.

Google links to sites hosting copyrighted material. So did this site. Neither of them HOST the content so neither of them are doing anything illegal.

Your understanding of the law is somewhat lacking. Firstly this isn't big evil powerful corporations prosecuting someone lol, this is the American government with tax payers money (ironically here it's the British government prosecuting him). They sue corporations all the time in Federal court.

They're doing it on behalf of corporations, not out of the goodness of their hearts.

The judge doesn't understand how websites work, WTF? Judges are lawyers, they aren't computer experts, forensic scientists, businessmen, scientists yet they rule on all of these by listening to what experts say. How you can have such sweeping contempt for judges and offer no evidence is embarrassing.

How have I got contempt for Judges? All I'm saying is their understanding of this subject is lacking, as has been shown in this case. They believed the "experts" from the US, who were clearly not telling the truth. Again, the guy did nothing illegal in the UK yet is being sent to the US to face trial and therefore the Judge clearly lacked understanding.

Just because I don't think this one Judge understood this case, doesn't mean I have contempt for all Judges, that's a ridiculous statement and you're clearly only saying it to distract from the main issue, which is that this person DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME IN THE UK. His site had no links to the US at all, it was all based within the UK.

[Iso Herrk]

(Original post by FinalMH)
Okay fine you want a debate about Google obeying the law?

Google advertising can be used by anyone, it doesn't matter what your advertising it can be top result.

For example, the Olympic tickets were featured on Google ad-words by an third party vendor, which is against the law in the UK because no third party vendor can sell the tickets. I don't see any USA citizen or charges against the company be followed up. According to Google it isn't up to them to check every single advertising to ensure it isn't breaking the law in that country. Therefore in this case the USA should be going after the users of the site not the owner.

I mean Google makes money of piracy so why is it considered illegal if someone else uses the same principles?

In addition to that statement in 2005 there was article on 'how to make bombs' which Google was advertising (Since then they have update their algorithm to prevent this from happening again, but no charge was brought to the company!) (If i can remember the article i will post it here)

Back to the case in hand. What the student did in the UK is not illegal. However what he did is immoral. I don't believe this man should spend any jail time in the USA because of the fact he is British citizen and should be trailed in the UK, which of course isn't a law here.

I personally believe that if people want things to change then you need to make it law in the country of resident. If american doesn't want their content around the world then they no want to do.

He was just making money our of piracy though. I don't think anyone could argue Google's business money is to make money out of piracy lol, any that they do probably makes up 0.0001% of their revenue. That's immaterial though because they don't intend to. He knew what he was doing.

[Iso Herrk]

(Original post by gateshipone)
Google links to sites hosting copyrighted material. So did this site. Neither of them HOST the content so neither of them are doing anything illegal.



They're doing it on behalf of corporations, not out of the goodness of their hearts.



How have I got contempt for Judges? All I'm saying is their understanding of this subject is lacking, as has been shown in this case. They believed the "experts" from the US, who were clearly not telling the truth. Again, the guy did nothing illegal in the UK yet is being sent to the US to face trial and therefore the Judge clearly lacked understanding.

Just because I don't think this one Judge understood this case, doesn't mean I have contempt for all Judges, that's a ridiculous statement and you're clearly only saying it to distract from the main issue, which is that this person DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME IN THE UK. His site had no links to the US at all, it was all based within the UK.

Google does not link sites to copyright material. I've just checked where is it? Does there need to be input on my part of some sort?

You don't know this judge, have you spoken to him, have you read everything he has? lol yes the US government has a "bunch" of experts up its sleave who they can troop out and fudge for them. Most of these experts will be professionals or academics, under oath in court examined by defence and prosecution and answerable to the judge, as in any case.

[gateshipone]

(Original post by Iso Herrk)
Google does not link sites to copyright material. I've just checked where is it? Does there need to be input on my part of some sort?

Do a search for "torrent <name of TV Show>". See those results, that's Google pointing you towards places you can get those shows illegally. They're pointing you to places where that content is hosted, just like TVShack did.

(Original post by Iso Herrk)
You don't know this judge, have you spoken to him, have you read everything he has? lol yes the US government has a "bunch" of experts up its sleave who they can troop out and fudge for them. Most of these experts will be professionals or academics, under oath in court examined by defence and prosecution and answerable to the judge, as in any case.

Of course I don't know him, but I'm basing my opinion on this decision only. I'm sure he's a fine judge but in this case he's made the wrong decision.

Experts give biased answers in court all the time. That's how the prosecution and defense can both bring out experts in the same field who totally contradict each other.

[Iso Herrk]

(Original post by gateshipone)
Do a search for "torrent <name of TV Show>". See those results, that's Google pointing you towards places you can get those shows illegally. They're pointing you to places where that content is hosted, just like TVShack did.

Ah right of course, there needs to be input on my part surely? So if I go to TVShack, there doesn't, it's all there for me?

[gateshipone]

(Original post by Iso Herrk)
Ah right of course, there needs to be input on my part surely? So if I go to TVShack, there doesn't, it's all there for me?

You'd still have to search for the specific content on TVShack. Just looking for the correct thread on the forum would constitute input by you.

[ice_man]

Why does the British government agree to this nonsense?! America is such a BULLY!

Not only did they drag Britain into the Iraq war & the Afghanistan war...

But now they want to prosecute BRITISH criminals. I think it's safe to say that America has full power over the UK for some reason...

[`R92]

(Original post by Iso Herrk)
He was just making money our of piracy though. I don't think anyone could argue Google's business money is to make money out of piracy lol, any that they do probably makes up 0.0001% of their revenue. That's immaterial though because they don't intend to. He knew what he was doing.

If anything google makes more money out of piracy than he did - i don't see how one is punishable and the other isn't simply because google makes money out of piracy and other things.

[Iso Herrk]

(Original post by gateshipone)
You'd still have to search for the specific content on TVShack. Just looking for the correct thread on the forum would constitute input by you.

Not from what I've seen, there are plenty of screens available, when you go to the homepage there are links galore about what you can watch, I don't see any of that on Google.

[Agenda Suicide]

**** America.


They are really starting to piss me off, and I really liked them.


You didn't break the law, but if you were in America, you would of, and they are pissed, so get over there.

[Iso Herrk]

(Original post by `R92)
If anything google makes more money out of piracy than he did - i don't see how one is punishable and the other isn't simply because google makes money out of piracy and other things.

Is Google's business model to try and make money out of piracy, Google make billions legitimately. His only revenue source was from piracy.

[clarusblue]

The scene I'm imagining in the courtroom is an old magistrate who doesn't understand links and websites, and makes his decision based on misunderstanding.

Having said that though, setting up a site like this is definitely questionable, even if not illegal. He must have known he could get in trouble of some kind from it

[FinalMH]

(Original post by Iso Herrk)
He was just making money our of piracy though. I don't think anyone could argue Google's business money is to make money out of piracy lol, any that they do probably makes up 0.0001% of their revenue. That's immaterial though because they don't intend to. He knew what he was doing.

lol 1 in 10 webpage in the world is porn. You would be surprised on how Google make their money. ( I know, unrelated but still..)

[clarusblue]

People slagging off the USA for coming over here and doing what they want - this agreement about extraditions is between the UK and america, and on the BBC news report on the ruling it showed a few figures about how many extradition requests are accepted/rejected by the other country. Britain is much stricter than the USA over this - they tend to send people back to us more than the Uk sends people there. Often British courts rule that it can't happen.

So it's not simply a case of america coming over, doing what they want. Britain does the same over there, and actually get their own way more often

[Iso Herrk]

(Original post by clarusblue)
People slagging off the USA for coming over here and doing what they want - this agreement about extraditions is between the UK and america, and on the BBC news report on the ruling it showed a few figures about how many extradition requests are accepted/rejected by the other country. Britain is much stricter than the USA over this - they tend to send people back to us more than the Uk sends people there. Often British courts rule that it can't happen.

So it's not simply a case of america coming over, doing what they want. Britain does the same over there, and actually get their own way more often

Exactly most people have no clue, when have you ever heard of the US refusing to extradite anyone to us. Plus they have a population at least 4 times the size of ours yet the statistics still stand up.

[christinasrose]

It's far too simplistic to just say 'he's british ergo he should be tried here' and 'he didn't download the material so he didn't do anything wrong.'
There are an inordinate number of differences between different countries' legal systems and it's perfectly normal for a country to request the extradition of an individual to deal with a serious crime. This was a crime dealing with intellectual property, an area of the law which deals with the inherently intangible; therefore international law when it comes to ip and copyright is more complex. Although he was physically situated in the UK when he was committin the 'crime' the nature of his crime was that it enabled individuals outwith the UK to commit copyright infringement.

There is also the issue that much of the material which he was enabling the copyright infringement of was intellectual property of individuals and firms of the United States. That also has some importance.
As for the argument about him not actually downloading the material himself, he was enabling the downloading of material. Essentially the IP equivalent of being an accessory to a crime.
And to illustrate (not that his crime is anywhere as serious as my example) if, for example, a paedophile had links to websites and illegal material, would you say 'well he hadn't actually downloaded the illegal material; he just provided a handy search engine for paedophiles'? No, it would still be a crime. And as much as there is a huge difference between that and copyright infringement the same principle applies.

[Pride]

hey, I'm sure the judges know what their doing. How can we sit here without a single law qualification and criticise their decisions...?

(Original post by christinasrose)
It's far too simplistic to just say 'he's british ergo he should be tried here' and 'he didn't download the material so he didn't do anything wrong.'
There are an inordinate number of differences between different countries' legal systems and it's perfectly normal for a country to request the extradition of an individual to deal with a serious crime. This was a crime dealing with intellectual property, an area of the law which deals with the inherently intangible; therefore international law when it comes to ip and copyright is more complex. Although he was physically situated in the UK when he was committin the 'crime' the nature of his crime was that it enabled individuals outwith the UK to commit copyright infringement.

There is also the issue that much of the material which he was enabling the copyright infringement of was intellectual property of individuals and firms of the United States. That also has some importance.
As for the argument about him not actually downloading the material himself, he was enabling the downloading of material. Essentially the IP equivalent of being an accessory to a crime.
And to illustrate (not that his crime is anywhere as serious as my example) if, for example, a paedophile had links to websites and illegal material, would you say 'well he hadn't actually downloaded the illegal material; he just provided a handy search engine for paedophiles'? No, it would still be a crime. And as much as there is a huge difference between that and copyright infringement the same principle applies.

^ this

[I Kant Spall]

(Original post by clarusblue)
So it's not simply a case of america coming over, doing what they want. Britain does the same over there, and actually get their own way more often

That couldn't be further from the truth. The extradition act I mentioned earlier, Extradition Act 2003, is as onesided as you can possibly get. And who do you think it benefits more, the US or the UK? Yeah, exactly. US authorities no longer have to provide prima facie evidence to British courts when they want to extradite someone, which probably would have saved this poor chap here a trip across the Atlantic. Instead, all they have to do is make an assertion of serious wrongdoing. There is, however, no reciprocity in this arrangement: British authorities still have to provide hard evidence to US courts when they try to extradite someone to the UK.

[gateshipone]

(Original post by christinasrose)
It's far too simplistic to just say 'he's british ergo he should be tried here' and 'he didn't download the material so he didn't do anything wrong.'
There are an inordinate number of differences between different countries' legal systems and it's perfectly normal for a country to request the extradition of an individual to deal with a serious crime. This was a crime dealing with intellectual property, an area of the law which deals with the inherently intangible; therefore international law when it comes to ip and copyright is more complex. Although he was physically situated in the UK when he was committin the 'crime' the nature of his crime was that it enabled individuals outwith the UK to commit copyright infringement.

There is also the issue that much of the material which he was enabling the copyright infringement of was intellectual property of individuals and firms of the United States. That also has some importance.
As for the argument about him not actually downloading the material himself, he was enabling the downloading of material. Essentially the IP equivalent of being an accessory to a crime.
And to illustrate (not that his crime is anywhere as serious as my example) if, for example, a paedophile had links to websites and illegal material, would you say 'well he hadn't actually downloaded the illegal material; he just provided a handy search engine for paedophiles'? No, it would still be a crime. And as much as there is a huge difference between that and copyright infringement the same principle applies.

How can he be an accessory to a crime when no crime was committed? His site was hosted in the UK and he didn't have any US copyrighted material on his site. Therefore he did nothing illegal either in the UK or the US. If he directly hosted the content, then yes, the US would have a case, however his site was not breaking any laws. This is the issue here.

[RipperRoo]

(Original post by gateshipone)
How can he be an accessory to a crime when no crime was committed? His site was hosted in the UK and he didn't have any US copyrighted material on his site. Therefore he did nothing illegal either in the UK or the US. If he directly hosted the content, then yes, the US would have a case, however his site was not breaking any laws. This is the issue here.

I'm puzzled as to how the US can even make a claim against him when his servers aren't in the US (unless the domain makes it a US violation?). Like someone said earlier it's like extraditing someone to Saudi for wearing a bikini or whatever.