'Piracy' student Richard O'Dwyer loses extradition case

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

All good points and to an extent i agree but the nature of the 'crime' is a world wide one ,quite literally, so shouldn't there be a world wide body to deal with it because like it or not crimes are being committed quite openly in other countries by people residing in the UK or any other country .It seems that the US have or are trying to set themselves up as that body because from their perspective they and their companies have most to lose

Yes. Ask one country to act as the global 'watchdog' for free trade/crime/whatever. That'll work. They would never work to preserve their own interest...

[martyh]

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes. Ask one country to act as the global 'watchdog' for free trade/crime/whatever. That'll work. They would never work to preserve their own interest...

I didn't have a country in mind because of couse that would be far too one sided ,i did say a body .But as i said it does appear that the US are trying to set themselves up as that body by claiming jurisdiction over .com and .net addresses .I wonder how many other countries they have this type of treaty with ? and are they pursuing criminals from all over the world using those types of addresses?.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by martyh

We decline to act because it is not a criminal offence in this country but the act is causing harm in another country where it is a criminal offence and we do have a legal means to extradite the person to that country should they request it .If it was a criminal offence in this country then he may well have been prosecuted in this country

If a action is not a crime in the country you perform it in then it is not a crime. Otherwise people could be sent to Iran for blasphemy (if in some terrible event we had an extradition treaty with Iran).

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

I didn't have a country in mind because of couse that would be far too one sided ,i did say a body .But as i said it does appear that the US are trying to set themselves up as that body by claiming jurisdiction over .com and .net addresses .I wonder how many other countries they have this type of treaty with ? and are they pursuing criminals from all over the world using those types of addresses?.

Claiming jurisdiction over .com and .net addresses seems a massive land grab to me. Having jurisdiction means you can fit the laws as they suit you. It also means fines go into your coffers. Obviously, jurisdiction means nothing when not recognised by others.

I don't think this case has anything to do with .net. They can, as per the treaty. .net doesn't come into it.

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:08 ----------

Originally Posted by downquark1

If a action is not a crime in the country you perform it in then it is not a crime. Otherwise people could be sent to Iran for blasphemy (if in some terrible event we had an extradition treaty with Iran).

Some countries (not the UK at present) have specific laws about offences outside their borders. As in: having sex with an under-age person in Thailand will make you accountable to both Thai and local laws. For sex offences, I think this is good.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by downquark1

If a action is not a crime in the country you perform it in then it is not a crime. Otherwise people could be sent to Iran for blasphemy (if in some terrible event we had an extradition treaty with Iran).

The US and UK(and some others) have laws making it a criminal offence for their citizens/residents to commit an act that is legal in the country they did it, but illegal in their home country.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

72Offences outside the United Kingdom(1)If—
(a)a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,
the United Kingdom national is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence.

I KNOW that other instances for other types of offences where extradition is used, There is even this case which is equivalent to your Iran/blasphemy claim.
Canada expels Holocaust denier

Germany was able to seek his extradition on the grounds that he was running a web site denying the existence of the Holocaust.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The US and UK(and some others) have laws making it a criminal offence for their citizens/residents to commit an act that is legal in the country they did it, but illegal in their home country.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
I KNOW that other instances for other types of offences where extradition is used, There is even this case which is equivalent to your Iran/blasphemy claim.
Canada expels Holocaust denier

Indeed.

Welcome to the real world downside of the internets where grown ups were passing laws based on the aspirations of a generation who were too selfish, self centred, naive and foolish to realize that their actions were subject to scrutiny and the rule of law.

"There are none so blind as those who cannot see".

Messrs O'Dwyer and Tappin are only the most recent in a long line of people who have fallen & will fall foul of those laws.

Of the two Mr Tappin's is, to my mind, the more worrying as Mr O'Dwyers current malaise has been brought about by his own volition / greed and disregard for the rights of others whereas Mr Tappin may have been subject to entrapment.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The US and UK(and some others) have laws making it a criminal offence for their citizens/residents to commit an act that is legal in the country they did it, but illegal in their home country.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
I KNOW that other instances for other types of offences where extradition is used, There is even this case which is equivalent to your Iran/blasphemy claim.
Canada expels Holocaust denier

well that's very different, he was German and committed crimes in Canada too.

---------- Post added at 11:09 ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Some countries (not the UK at present) have specific laws about offences outside their borders. As in: having sex with an under-age person in Thailand will make you accountable to both Thai and local laws. For sex offences, I think this is good.

I should have added and if it not illegal in your home country too.

Obviously, you can find extreme circumstances where you may want to bend this rule, but this case seems to amount to petty theft.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I should have added and if it not illegal in your home country too.

Obviously, you can find extreme circumstances where you may want to bend this rule, but this case seems to amount to petty theft.

Yes. We are expected to know and not break the law of the land we commit acts in. Not to randomly have foreign laws applied to us, except in the most extreme circumstances. This seems a pretty basic human right to me.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by downquark1

well that's very different, he was German and committed crimes in Canada too.

---------- Post added at 11:09 ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 ----------



I should have added and if it not illegal in your home country too.

Obviously, you can find extreme circumstances where you may want to bend this rule, but this case seems to amount to petty theft.

I'd hardly call $230,000 in advertising revenue petty theft

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by martyh

I'd hardly call $230,000 in advertising revenue petty theft

The $230,000 is not theft, that money would not have otherwise belonged to the copyright holders. That's more like "ill-gotten gains" and if Britain has a problem with it they should pass their own law and govern their own people.

People complain about sovereignty being given to Europe, at least we have elected officials there.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by downquark1

The $230,000 is not theft, that money would have have otherwise belonged to the copyright holders. That's more like "ill-gotten gains" and if Britain has a problem with it they should pass their own law and govern their own people.

People complain about sovereignty being given to Europe, at least we have elected officials there.

At the end of the day he was fully aware he was breaking copyright laws in the USA along with the other 4 sites that were shut down at the same time .Even if he wasn't pursued by the federal authorities he could have been sued by the copyright owners .He may not have been aware that it was a criminal offence in the USA and that there was a treaty in force that could be used to ensure he was punished under American law but if you are going to break the law at have the sense to find out what the punishment is likely to be

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by martyh

At the end of the day he was fully aware he was breaking copyright laws in the USA along with the other 4 sites that were shut down at the same time .Even if he wasn't pursued by the federal authorities he could have been sued by the copyright owners .He may not have been aware that it was a criminal offence in the USA and that there was a treaty in force that could be used to ensure he was punished under American law but if you are going to break the law at have the sense to find out what the punishment is likely to be

I'm not arguing about whether he was in the right or that it's not his own fault, I'm arguing that it's a terrible method of "justice" that pushes the boundaries of the legitimacy of democratic law.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I'm not arguing about whether he was in the right or that it's not his own fault, I'm arguing that it's a terrible method of "justice" that pushes the boundaries of the legitimacy of democratic law.

well i believe that there is a revue of the treaty and it's use under way ,but for now it is the reality of the situation .It may seem a bit ott for copyright infringement to us ,but i think that's because we are used to it being dealt with in civil courts .If it was a criminal offence in this country we would most likely have a different outlook and allowing someone to commit a crime in other countries from the safety of their own is wrong ,you have to admit