41–50 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is too much money involved it that.
I doubt that. The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US traffic. And I'm not talking minor sites either.
Yes, but US websites comprise the vast majority of top websites on the Internet....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When the extradition process is started, it is because the relevant authorities have already decided the individual is guilty. So, what is the right approach? Start the extradition process when you don't believe the individual is guilty? I would hope not. Taking action to bring someone to trial because you believe they are guilty is entirely different from the claim that in the US you are now "guilty until proven in…
>Back in June 2010, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seized O'Dwyer's tvshack.net domain name after a closed, one-sided hearing before a judge. That shows they believed he is guilty before a trial. It was a linking site, he wasn't hosting anything. Google aids in copyright infringement as people use their service every day to find download links to things. But they are fine? The legislation in place acros…
if "they" refers to the prosecution: well, i sure hope that the prosecution believes he is guilty before a trial starts. i think the alternative is that the prosecution prosecutes people at random?
if "they" refers to the judge: definitely not. seizures like this are because they have evidence against him and have what the judge believes to be a reasonable case; this does not mean the judge believes the defendant to be guilty. maybe you don't think the case is reasonable, and maybe its not, but its a far cry from "guilty until proven innocent"
LOL, the UK is a US colony now. I can hear History rolling on the floor with laughter.
http://london.usembassy.gov/gb140.html
"The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK under the treaty. While the U.S. does send more extradition requests to the UK than it receives, this difference is largely due to the differences in the size of the respective populations. The panel report notes that the U.S. has a population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number of U.S. requests is not disproportionate."
However some argue there is no difference namely Sir Scott Baker who's reports stated: "In our opinion there is no significant difference between the probably cause test and the reasonable suspicion test"
However, critics of the treaty say it is much easier to extradite people from the UK than the US because the US does not need to present evidence to a British court.
Conversely, the UK must provide "sufficient evidence to establish probable cause" in order to secure the extradition of an American citizen.
The other argument is the agreement was post 9-11 for the speedy extradition of terrorists but between 2003 and 2009 only one of 63 extraditions were terrorists.
To be honest I don't really know whether the extradition agreement is one sided, I feel it might have something to do with the respective cases being so high profile.
Perhaps the UK's punishment of crime in comparison to the US is also an issue, sentence lengths in the UK generally tend to be a lot less.
The current political and legal sell-out to the US makes me, and I believe many fellow-Europeans, increasingly angry in a way that is fundamentally different from any anti-American feelings for instance during the Bush-years. Disagreeing with US foreign policy is one thing, but being on the receiving end of US meddling through political and legal corruption in a way that undermines our civil rights cuts way deeper.
Well, so here is a great way the US is luring the world talent: By alienating the smart people with brainless and predatory policies like this.
Don't host your startup with a US company or at a European data center belonging to a US company (e.g. AWS or Linode in Ireland). And preferably not in a country that is a US copyright/IP colony (UK, AU, NZ, CA). Otherwise you're putting your users and yourself in danger.
That ARS writeup is pretty one-sided. I love how they paint him up as a poor student, and don't mention the $250,000+ he made off the site. This was absolutely not just piracy, but PROFITING from piracy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-R...
How was the money made? Ads? Google has ads and finding a video of any show on there is pretty easy. They are also profiting from infringement. In the end I just don't get why linking is why if what he did is not it's not illegal where he is he could still be extradited even if he never had servers in the US and never promoted directly to Americans (I'm assuming he didn't go out and ask Americans to his site). Thing…
It's a difference of attitude.
I found a snapshot of their site, here are a few bits from their FAQ:
" Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but this is a normal, typical price). " ... snipped price list ... "So, as you see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of time. "
Their main listing page is broken up into genres, which shows they were aware of the nature of their content, and includes heading that indicate the source of the content: "Movies" "TV" "Anime", etc. They don't even make an effort to hide what they are doing. Their submission page mentions "Copying the name of the show exactly as it is on imdb".
As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing.
That ARS writeup is pretty one-sided. I love how they paint him up as a poor student, and don't mention the $250,000+ he made off the site. This was absolutely not just piracy, but PROFITING from piracy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-R...
How was the money made? Ads? Google has ads and finding a video of any show on there is pretty easy. They are also profiting from infringement. In the end I just don't get why linking is why if what he did is not it's not illegal where he is he could still be extradited even if he never had servers in the US and never promoted directly to Americans (I'm assuming he didn't go out and ask Americans to his site). Thing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is too much money involved it that.
I doubt that. The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US traffic. And I'm not talking minor sites either.
Also: The vast majority of non-US websites have very little to gain from blocking US traffic
Are you sure that no code you've written infringes on US patents? Or is used on a website that encourages the wrong type of copyright infringement?