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 wallets say so is sickening.
You missed the memo, but it still sucks. Juristiction depends on which country the "harm" occurred. For example, if I fire a rocket at another country, then I've certainly committed a crime within its boundaries, despite never having set foot there.
His website was accessible in the US by design (one could forbid US visitors in the ToS, and by geoip), and the "harm" from his supposed crime occurred, for those US users, in the US, not inside his server.
What sucks about this case is that it seems incredibly unlikely that linking constitutes a felony copyright infringement, because no copyrighted material is ever directly encountered. It seems much more likely that only a misdemeanor infringement occurred (if any), for which the UK does not extradite to the US.
This is outrageous. I joined the Pirate Party to combat bullshit like this by making such crimes to be prosecuted in the home country. Especially because some countries have batshit insane penalties for IP.
Have you allowed people to upload stuff to your website and didn't stop them enough? Well, it looks like you're liable for conspiracy for copyright infringement of something. A criminal penalty of $150k and 5 years jail per infringement.
True enough, but in this case he didn't directly cause harm and I imagine it'd never go through the courts all the way. Unless we start saying that Google directly causes harm and so on, it's the same purpose and Google profits the same, and oddly enough they're based on US soil.
As a British citizen I'm truly sickened by the idea that someone can be extradited over something which is potentially not even a crime, when the biggest name in the game is still sat with million dollar legal teams ready to pounce if they get pulled up on it.
I agree that the problem is that it looks unlikely that a serious crime occurred, and yet extradition has been requested.
However, the "Google do the same" argument doesn't fly, because Google follow the DMCA and so are exempt from being prosecuted for any copyright infringement from user-generated or crawled content.
PS - "harm" is a very general concept, so if I facilitate copyright infringement in the US from the UK, the "harm" occurs in the US, even though I'm in the UK.
>His website was accessible in the US by design (one could forbid US visitors in the ToS, and by geoip), and the "harm" from his supposed crime occurred, for those US users, in the US, not inside his server.
No one should have to concern themselves with the laws of every nation on Earth when building a website. There is usually not enough time in your life to consider the laws from only your home country.
Indeed. International copyright law needs revising - but I don't think we'll all be agreeing on anything soon, especially after the whole SOPA debacle.
If you run a dubious website, your only option is to block all countries other than your own, and provide a notice to that effect.
Is it silly? I dont know. It's hard to argue that you have the right to interact with a country's inhabitants but that the country cannot govern those interactions. Though the governing needs to be fair...
Easy: half of it took place within their borders. When you interact with other countries you do so on their terms, because they are sovereign.
Of course, if a crime is only half-committed in one country, then it is also only half-committed in the other country (presuming it is a crime in both). So either of the countries must be free to prosecute.
I think irregardless of the country of origin for the company making the complaint it should be held within the actual country the person resides in and has supposedly committed a crime, otherwise it ruins the system.
Legal specifics will depend on the country you live in.
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...
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.