11–20 of 103 posts
So he built a crowd-sourced version of Google's video search? https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbm=vid&q=the+sopranos Since I am secondary linking to copyrighted content via Google, does that make the owners of this website liable to prosecution?
This kind of stuff has been going on for too long.
This is shocking and as a UK citizen angers me greatly, however I have to say this guy doesn't seem too smart. Firstly, building a website (presumably with the domain registered under his name) like this in the current legal climate is basically asking for trouble. Especially hosting it in Sweden (where the TBP was). Secondly , in the interview he asked the Police if he should get a solicitor, and decided not to get…
Because he was a scared kid who wanted this to go away, and the police told him it would if he just answer their questions and not wait the "2 hours" for the lawyer. He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign country for a decade for posting links on the internet.
I was arrested when I was 14 (for something minor) and I wasn't dumb enough to refuse legal representation.
"People who have committed serious offences such as murder, rape, other sex crimes and fraud, have been successfully extradited to the UK and convicted." That is just crazy, comparing the allegations of copyright infringement, with murder and rape? Are we in in that society already?
So what's next? UK asking to extradite Sergey and Larry for the same allegations? Crazy.
The very idea that you can effectively be transported to a country that you have nothing to do with and committed no crime in just purely because the big boys with the big wallets say so is sickening.
Whether or not what he did was a criminal or civil crime, he's not a US citizen, he didn't commit the crime within US boundaries (unless I've missed a memo), so he should not stand trial in a country that has nothing to do with the situation . The very idea that you can effectively be transported to a country that you have nothing to do with and committed no crime in just purely because the big boys with the big wall…
Does anybody have any legal specifics here? I wonder if this is something that could happen to just random bittorrent users?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he was a scared kid who wanted this to go away, and the police told him it would if he just answer their questions and not wait the "2 hours" for the lawyer. He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign country for a decade for posting links on the internet.
Agreed, but this is standard tactics for the police. The police (particularly the met) are out to get an easy prosecution and fulfill their statistical requirements rather than fair and honest justice. They will pretend to be your friend and offer you an easy way out that doesn't exist to do this. The best thing you can do is say nothing at all. Shut your gob and refuse to say a word. Everything should be replied to…
Whether or not what he did was a criminal or civil crime, he's not a US citizen, he didn't commit the crime within US boundaries (unless I've missed a memo), so he should not stand trial in a country that has nothing to do with the situation . The very idea that you can effectively be transported to a country that you have nothing to do with and committed no crime in just purely because the big boys with the big wall…
I'm guessing it's because a US company lodged the prosecution. Does anybody have any legal specifics here? I wonder if this is something that could happen to just random bittorrent users?
For example, this would not be possible in France (i live there) as the country never extradites any of its citizens for any reason - this will stand even if you committed a crime abroad and managed to get back, you could only be tried back home -
As for the british kid, I support him 100% but it seems that the UK has signed very liberal agreements with the US concerning their citizens...
So he built a crowd-sourced version of Google's video search? https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbm=vid&q=the+sopranos Since I am secondary linking to copyrighted content via Google, does that make the owners of this website liable to prosecution?
Also, the law understands intent. Google will take down links when requested. This guy purposefully ignored take-down requests, and was clearly purposefully organising his website to pirate copyrighted material.
Now, if he should be taken to the US is another question, but in my opinion you shouldn't lower the debate by claiming what he did is particularly similar to Google's video search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, but this is standard tactics for the police. The police (particularly the met) are out to get an easy prosecution and fulfill their statistical requirements rather than fair and honest justice. They will pretend to be your friend and offer you an easy way out that doesn't exist to do this. The best thing you can do is say nothing at all. Shut your gob and refuse to say a word. Everything should be replied to…
Relevant talk for those, who thinks it can be a good idea to talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
For example, part of standard USA Miranda:
"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
British Equivalent:
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court"
Having said that, I would personally keep quiet until you at least have a solicitor.