'Piracy' student loses US extradition battle over copyright infringement

Nash said:
As i said, please enlighten me or shut the fuck up :shrug:

Just to clarify why I see no difference between Google and file linking sites...

Supposedly, the crime being committed is "facilitating copyright infringement". How are the two searches below any different?

The Pirate Bay file search
Google file search

Neither of those searches link directly to files but both "facilitate copyright infringement" by linking to pages or files that do. In fact, the google search makes it easier as no extra software is required to download the infringing material.

If Google is considered as being "not the same" as you have said, then surely "facilitating copyright infringement" is not the crime. If so, what crime is being committed?

However, you could argue that the sole purpose of his site was to link to copyrighted material whereas Google is a service to find everything on the web. That doesn't change the fact that both sites do the same, in this case, "facilitating copyright infringement".
Also, Google has money, this guy doesn't.
Click to expand...
It's funny to watch you get all pissed off when someone makes you figure something out on your own.

but i've bolded the only part of your post that actually matters. yes, thats exactly it. google's service is to index the internet (in it's entirety, sans links/sites that are specifically marked not the be indexed). the fact that their search includes links to copyrighted material being provided without permission of the copyright holder is a side effect. one that google actually deals with when asked to. they will remove links from search if the proper channels are followed; much in the same way they'll remove youtube videos if they violate copyright (although thats a topic for another day, because they've gone overboard with youtube). their intent is not to facilitate the downloading of copyrighted material without permission.

this guy's website, or the pirate bay, has the sole intent of facilitating copyright infringement. those links are not the result of indexing the internet - they're the result of him putting in time and effort to specifically find those kinds of links, then creating a repository for others to use in an effort to reduce the amount of time they have to spend searching for copyrighted material so they can obtain it without permission.

it comes down to intent. the intent of the two could not be more different. google also provides a way for copyright holders to protest, and remove, links. this guy doesn't. (i don't know how well it works, it could be a slow tideous process on google's part, but it is at least available).

Here's googles webmaster tools. The include ways to remove content you posted, or content others have posted, and a process to follow:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1663688

Can you link to something similar for this guys site?


The supreme court has ruled that intent plays a major part in the judicial system in the united states in quite a few cases in the past. We also have different statutes (or differen't parts) and different punishments for (essentially) the same crimes depending on intent. There's a reason some people get manslaughter when they've killed someone, while others get murder in the 2nd degree, and yet others get murder in the 1st degree. Go research them if you're interested.

you caught me in a good mood so I typed out all that stuff that is pretty common sense. stop being a stupid fuckwad and use your brain for something. quit using garbage arguments to try to promote an activity you like, it makes everyone else who is trying to promote that activity look stupid. you'd best serve the cause of not allowing the RIAA to run rampant with policies, criminal charges, and civil suits by keeping your mouth shut, because you're not intelligent enough to defend your position without looking stupid.


Pagy said:
this isn't a piracy issue or an issue of his guilt or innocence...

those whole point of extradition laws is to transfer expatriates back to their home country to face legal action... to prevent them from icing a muthafucka then hiding in London.

how the hell can Americans arrest and extradite a non citizen for crimes committed in another country...? this is like Saudi Arabia arresting your mom for not wearing a headscarf.... like wtf
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why the US felt like this was a justifiable use of extradition treaties, and (more imporantly) why the UK felt it was ok to give up a citizen over this, is where the real problem lies.
 
Last edited:
Uh, it's fairly obvious why the U.S. decided to bend International Law to the breaking point: the entertainment lobby. Wouldn't surprise me if the UK was getting pressure from the same entities.

This kid's being made an example of, plain and simple.
 
Well... yeah.

The problem is that the governments have decided the entertainment industry is more important that their citizens...
 
I can't think of a clearer example of who is pulling the strings in this country.
 
the Extradition Treaty between the US and UK is pretty one-sided

But we signed it so we have to abide by it.

And yes this is bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top