BS: Extradition

Subject: BS: Extradition
From: stallion
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 06:09 AM

I have just been thinking about this Brit who is being extradited to the US because, although he has not stepped foot in the US and not broken any British laws, he hosts a web site which has links to "pirate" sites. Now tell me your thoughts on this, if under 21's in the UK drink Coors or Budwieser or other alcoholic drinks owned or franchised by US companies will they become eligible for extradition? Or would the FBI prosecute US the owners on the grounds that they are knowingly supplying alcohol to people under 21 years of age? How does this work? If Brits living and working in the UK break US laws they can be extradited so why not all the 18 to 20 year old drinkers?

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 06:51 AM

The USA adheres to the effects doctrine, that is to say that the harm of copyright infringment is felt where the infringment is received - in this case the USA.

South New York and one of the Texan jurisdictions have long asserted jurisdiction over IP matters outside the USA.

Yet ironically the US passed legislation specifically to limit the likelihood of UK courts asserting jurisdiction in respect of libels originated in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 08:25 AM

Basically, the US government wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to be able to be able to freely extradite foreigners for trial in US courts, but refuses to sign treaties which may result in US citizens being tried in international courts. It seeks to enforce US law as if it were a universal standard, while ignoring laws enacted by international conventions. Remind me again, how many "R"s are there in "arrogance"?

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Musket
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 09:09 AM

As USA is not a signatory to international conventions protecting human rights, and as they commit state murder of their citizens through their judiciary process in many states, I do have issues with extradition treaties.

The ones I feel sort for are the mudcatters who through their professional work, make a living out of defending copyright, so find themselves on the side of big business and USA conglomerates. It must make the old conscience swirl a bit eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 10:15 AM

I've acted against US major studios many times, never for.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 01:31 PM

BWL:

One R.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 01:50 PM

I'm also concerned with the one who is already there.

65 year old businessman Christopher Tappin has been kept for some time in solitary confinement, he has been refused bail as a "danger to the public and a flight risk" and his lawyers are located in Austin Texas and have to fly in to visit him in the New Mexico jail where he is held.

The only press releases we have seen are statements from the prosecution and they seem to be busily engaged in trying his case in the Media.

Not one word has been published of his side of the story, and he can't even have the books of crossword puzzles sent by his family. The prison authorities took the books and handed him the envelope.

It seems likely that his trial will take place in two years from now, which means that he will serve at least two years even if found not guilty.

My guess would be that if he is found not guilty, they will turn him loose at the prison gate without apology, and leave him to find his own way back to the UK.

American Justice!.........An OXYMORON!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 02:22 PM

Glad you have reverted to the appalling case of Tappin, Don. I PMd a thread on him a bit back. This seems a good time to refresh it.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bert
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 02:35 PM

Pirating music, videos or software is stealing. If he steals from someone in the US then he should be tried in the US.

Your drinking analogy has nothing to do with his website being linked to sites that steal.

The US justice system has many problems but your supporting of a thief does nothing to solve any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 03:14 PM

And you are blathering on about the wrong person Bert.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bert
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 03:17 PM

Sorry about that Dave, Seeing as he didn't say WHO it was I could only go by his own statement 'he hosts a web site which has links to "pirate" sites'.

If my site had links on it which point to sites that deal in stolen property I would expect to have the law knocking on my door.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 04:38 PM

Bert, if someone in your hometown were to steal intellectual property from (say) an Iranian, where should he be tried?

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bert
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 04:56 PM

In Iran of course. But he would get off, because in Iran They have a very Cavalier attitude towards intellectual property.

But if individual governments were to take the matter seriously, then extradition would be unnecessary. The only reason that it is a problem because Governments let their own citizens get away with it.

The ideal solution would be for governments to deal with the problems on their own soil. But as they fail to do that, then it leaves extradition the only solution.

I am sure that the US Government would have been only too happy to have had The British Government deal fairly with the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: stallion
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 05:16 PM

yes, but would they make an example of a US citizen? maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: stallion
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 05:28 PM

Bert, the system is broke and has to move with the times, people will pay 50pence for a track and avoid paying £15 for a cd. Don't get me going about theft, what about the inequitable share of PRS money. The large corporations are going through convulsions of seismic proportions as the business re adjust to the market which, through technological advances, has given the power back to the little people. These court cases are the death throws of the ancient regime the whole media industry has changed forever, just let go The King is dead, long live the King

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 06:59 PM

Look - a UK citizen steals a car in the UK. The crime is committed in the UK. He gets tried (if at all) in the UK. It doesn't matter a flying fuck who the car owner is or the car owner's residence or nationality.

A UK citizen makes, in the UK, a pirate commercial copy of a CD. Same.

A UK citizen stores an infringing copy of a CD on a website. Harder question. Is it a UK website if the server is in the UK, or if the website is controlled from the UK or if the website host is in the UK? I believe the *right* answer is whre the website is controlled from.

Harder still - a UK citizen organises a website that points others to places where they can access infringing copies. Does he, in law, "authorise" the infringment? If so where does he so authorise - where he is, where the infringing copy is, or where the further infringing copy of the infringing copy may be made? IMHO he authorises where he is, although the UK law has not always agreed with me on this - I think I read the statute correctly and judges have got it wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 08:06 PM

Ok then, Bert, if you have any influence perhaps you could get the US admin to adopt your position. As things stand, the US wouldn't extradite to the UK in the circs I cited, and Iran wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of securing such an extradition.

When you moan that other countries don't take appropriate action, what you really mean is that they don't take action judged by you and the US to be appropriate. Most countries for instance don't go in for judicial killing, and fewer than half-a-dozen admit to executing those who are juveniles at the time of their crimes. Amog them the Yemen and China. I expect you salute them both.

Face it, the US position is based on main force and will be upheld only as long as the US remains the world's superpower. Those days are now limited, and with the end in sight we can already see the US starting to fragment, a la the terminal throes of most preceding empires. Witness the present rumpus about justice Florida-style, and the recently demonstrated readiness of Rick Perry in Texas to defy Federal law. And if the fad for culling students runs on unchecked, the US will soon be unmanageable by the standards of most civilised states.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bert
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 12:40 AM

You guys can throw in as many irrelevant red herrings into the mix as you like.

The issue is that I am here is The States, if somebody steals from me, wherever they are then they should be tried in The States if the country in which they reside doesn't deal with the matter.

And a thief is a thief, it is no excuse that someone else (like maybe, the PRS) is a thief also.

The death penalty here is not relevant to this issue either. The fact that the death penalty is wrong does not alter the fact that the guy has linked his website to dealers in stolen property. It matters not that us poor folks are helpless in the matter and it is The Government that is pursuing the issue.

Intellectual property pirates should be made to pay restitution to all those that they steal from.
You either support thievery or you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 01:20 AM

Bert ~~ One could equally respond to your last point that one either believes in equity in extradition treaties or one doesn't. The point at issue is that the present treaty is not equitable. For some reason it was so ill-considered and ill-drafted, in such haste as purely in original intent a counter-terrorism measure, that you can extradite one our citizens in cases where we could not extradite one of yours for a comparable breach of our laws. Both the instant case and that of Mr Tappin are gross and glaring examples of this.

To return a gloss on your own words to you:~ You either support equity & justice or you don't.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 03:47 AM

Bert- read my fucking lips. The point is WHERE the alleged crime is committed. Copyright only exists under the laws of each separate jurisdiction. US copyright only subsists under US law, and unless and until the UK becomes a colony of the US US law does not apply in the UK and if you don't like it, send a gunboat. Copyright in the UK subsists by virtue of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended and the acts restricted by copyright are those there specified.

Ignorance may be explicable. Wilful ignorance should not be tolerated.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bert
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:06 AM

~M~ You are right that the extradition agreements should be equitable; but I don't see that as an excuse for letting crooks go free. ...You either support equity & justice or you don't...

Richard, You say...The point is WHERE the alleged crime is committed...;

my contention is that if you steal from an American who is living in America then that is where the crime happens. However, if we go with you interpretation that the crime was committed in the UK, then he should have been tried in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:16 AM

The whole point, Bert, is that a crime was NOT committed in the UK. The person in question has not stolen anything from anyone - Just hosted a web site which hosts links to 'pirate' sites.

It is just like me saying that you broke UK laws because you linked to site where it shows you how to kill swans! Not that you would do such a thing of course. But someone might.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:18 AM

You are, in the true sense, begging the question, Bert; as to the definition of 'crook', esp in relation to whether a crime has been committed when the action involved was not illegal in the place where it took place.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: stallion
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 11:04 AM

The problem of course is the internet, before the internet no one in the USA new who was singing their songs and copying their stuff in the UK and wider world, nor did they care so long as they were making enough money. As for China, a company I occasionally work for outsourced their founding and iron casting work to China, they sent out their patented mould patterns and shortly after noticed the castings were coming back minus the company logo, further research found them being sold through the internet at a third of the price that the company was selling them at. I think that they have been hoisted by their own petard, had they kept production in the UK they would be able to manage the products. The way music is listened to and the way music is stored has been through a very rapid revolution which has destroyed the very lucrative parts of that industry which is trying to hang on for dear life and this use of the extradition treaty by these people stinks it is an abuse of it's original intention. Oh and, Bert, I believe definition of theft is to permanently deprive someone of their property, I think a lesser crime of using without the owners consent or maybe not since the electricity is technically paid for by the plaintiff they haven't used anything other than how the electricity is arranged. Maybe a fee ought to be levied on electronic listening equipment.....no........ we get the PRS in equity again!

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 02:29 PM

Copyright infringment and authorising copyright infringment are capable of being crimes under UK law. But the question of whether the UK law has jurisdiction in respect of UK authorisation of an infringing reproduction that occurs in Germany (or vice versa) is a vexed question.

So is the question of whether the conduct in this case was an authorisation - for earlier US jurisprudence see the Betamax decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 10:27 PM

I don't know if Bert is still around, but if he thinks crimes against Americans should be tried in the US, he cannot be happy about the forthcoming Gitmo trials.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bert
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 02:29 AM

Peter, I am not happy about the whole Gitmo situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 05:53 AM

Fair play to you, Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 03:14 PM

That's an alarming expression.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 05:11 AM

Useful information about authorising copyright infringment - from the IPKat blog (sorry about the long cut and paste)

Friday, 20 April 2012
Jumping up and down as Roadshow hits the buffers

Admit it -- from the title of this post you
were expecting the usual cliched shot
of jumping kangaroos ...
Every copyright-sensitive Australian is jumping up and down today at the news that the High Court -- the nation's highest -- has given a clear ruling that internet service providers are not liable for authorising copyright infringement by making their services available to people who do infringe copyright. Some of the jumping up and down reflects the celebration of ISPs; some reflects the rage and fury of copyright owners. But what actually happened? The court has summarised its position succinctly in a note, issued this morning:

"ROADSHOW FILMS PTY LTD & ORS v iiNET LIMITED [2012] HCA 16

Today the High Court dismissed an appeal by a number of film and television companies from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court held that the respondent, an internet service provider, had not authorised the infringement by its customers of the appellants' copyright in commercially released films and television programs.

The appellants, thirty-four Australian and United States companies, either own or exclusively license the copyright in thousands of commercially released films and television programs ("the appellants' films"). The respondent, iiNet, provides internet services to its customers under an agreement which requires that the services not be used to infringe others' rights or for illegal purposes. Users of internet services provided by iiNet infringed copyright in the appellants' films by making the appellants' films available online using the BitTorrent peer-to-peer file sharing system. The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, on behalf of the appellants, served notices on iiNet ("the AFACT notices") alleging that iiNet's customers had infringed copyright in the appellants' films, and requiring iiNet to take action to prevent the infringements from continuing. iiNet took no action in response to the AFACT notices.

In the Federal Court at first instance, the trial judge held that iiNet had not authorised the infringement by its customers of copyright in the appellants' films. The appellants appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court. The Full Court, by majority, dismissed the appeal. The appellants were granted special leave to appeal to the High Court, where they argued that the majority of the Full Court had not correctly applied ss 101(1) and 101(1A) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Those provisions make authorising an act comprised in a copyright (without the licence of the owner of the copyright) an infringement of the copyright. They also set out matters which must be taken into account in determining whether a person has authorised such an act. The appellants contended that iiNet had the power to prevent its customers from infringing copyright in the appellants' films by issuing warnings and suspending or terminating customer accounts. The appellants argued that the AFACT notices provided credible information of past infringements by iiNet's customers sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion that acts of infringement were continuing, and that, once iiNet had received this information, its failure to take action amounted to authorisation of its customers' infringements.

The High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. The Court observed that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright in the appellants' films. Rather, the extent of iiNet's power to prevent its customers from infringing the appellants' copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual relationship with its customers. Further, the Court held that the information contained in the AFACT notices, as and when they were served, did not provide iiNet with a reasonable basis for sending warning notices to individual customers containing threats to suspend or terminate those customers' accounts. For these reasons, the Court held that it could not be inferred from iiNet's inactivity after receiving the AFACT notices that iiNet had authorised any act of infringement of copyright in the appellants' films by its customers".
The IPKat is delighted at this decision, not because it leaves copyright owners without a remedy but because infringement through authorisation is the wrong choice of remedy. It appears to him that this decision finally rids us of University of New South Wales v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26, one of the world's all-time worst copyright decisions in which it was held that, by making available a photocopy machine in its library for the use of students, a university was liable for authorising copyright infringement. 32 years ago this Kat criticised this decision in "Authorising Copyright Infringements" [1980] Journal of Business Law 109 and he thought that its effect in Australia had been wiped out by legislative amendment, but now it has come back to haunt us. With luck today's decision will bury its ghost.

You can read the full judgment here
Report in The Australian here
Comment from the Australian Copyright Council here

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 06:39 AM

I cannot see how you can "authorise" a crime by simply announcing where it is taking place.

If you actively encourage others to join in a crime, that would be different, but a link to a website does not constitute, per se, an active encouragement to visit or to use it, except in the minds of those who are paranoid about piracy.

Why don't they gratefully accept the intelligence they have been given by this lad and pursue the site owners who are thus exposed, the ones in fact who are actually committing a crime?

After all, he has stolen nothing at all, he hasn't even "handled" stolen property. He has in fact exposed those who are doing so.

It seems to me that the US authorities are paying lip service to protecting copyright by pursuing the easiest target, while achieving nothing in terms of catching the thieves.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 07:43 AM

"my contention is that if you steal from an American who is living in America then that is where the crime happens"

So if the perpretator sets foot on US soil then he is in danger of being prosecuted. Seems fair enough but the issue is over extradition. It has even been discussed in parliament here how the extradition process isn't working. The new agreement was specifically set up so people accused of terrorism could be more easily extradited but the US seems (to British eyes) to have taken advantage of it by chasing lesser supposed crimes without fully reciprocating themsleves. People here do resent that and also do worry if it looks like British citizens are being unfairly treated and perhaps when the possible sentences, and treatment, seem far in excess of what would be accepted here. The US are going to have to take more note of these issues or else it will become more and more difficult for them to extradite people who maybe should be extradited.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 07:52 AM

"no one in the USA new who was singing their songs and copying their stuff in the UK and wider world, nor did they care"

When I was a teenager virtually everybody used to copy each others vinyl records on blank recordable cassette tapes and play them on the Walkmans etc. That is how I first heard Dylan, New York Dolls etc. Glad I wasn't extradited to the US for stealing intellectual property. And if Bob or the Dolls'representatives are watching I can assure them I have since bought some of their music. The digital age truly seems to be bringing Big Brother into the bedrooms of today's kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: GUEST,Dazbo at Work
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 08:27 AM

For me, in England, it is the disparity in treatment that is at the heart of the problem.

It used to be to get extradited from the UK it needed to be proved in court that, as near as damn it, you were guilty of the alleged offence. Nowadays the US just has to ask for someone and the UK Judicial system seems to bend over backwards to send them. Whereas, the US has refused to ratify the treaty and it is almost impossible to get US citizens extradited to the UK. A situation that is totally unfair and unbalanced.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bert
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 08:41 PM

Disparity in treatment has nothing to do with aiding and abetting a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 12:47 AM

Bert ~~ You are still begging the same question - as to what shall be defined as a 'crime'. You over there denounce as a 'crime' something done elsewhere which would be illegal if done in your territory, but is not against the laws of the place where it happens to be done. I ask again, how can any action be a crime which is not against the law in the country where it takes place? You sneered at the poster above who made the following point, but it is very pertinent ~~ i.e., to follow your logic, you should extradite all our 18-20 year-olds who drink in pubs, as they are legally allowed to do in our primitive and unenlightened realm, for breaking your minimum-age drinking laws. Can you not get it into your thick head that our laws are not identical, and what is 'criminal' there is not necessarily so here? The principle of de minimis non curat lex, to hear you tell it, should be no inhibition here.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 02:06 AM

I think, following good old Bert's logic, that we should start extraditing some of the 14-year-olds who marry under the laws of some states of the Union and proceed to consummation. Don't you sillibuggaz over there know that our law sez that 16 is the God-given legal age of consent!

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 09:28 AM

We'll have to be very careful when talking about our visits to the USA Mike.

For God's sake don't comment naming the streets where you saw drug dealers or prostitutes or you'll be on a plane in handcuffs before you can say "I didn't tell anybody to go there".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bert
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 10:24 AM

...he hosts a web site which has links to "pirate" sites...

If pirating music, movies or software (stallion doesn't say which) isn't illegal in the UK, then it should be, because it is stealing.

If linking to those sites isn't aiding and abetting, then it should be.
I have links on my website to Mudcat to show that I personally support Mudcat.

If you condone thieving, then you are no better morally than the thieves themselves. I don't care where you are, you have my condemnation.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 11:44 AM

FFS, Bert, I give you stuff from learned legal commentators and you rant like that. The ugly American is in town!

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 12:11 PM

Your condemnation?!

Aaaarrrrggggghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Bert, you horrible cruel brute. I shan't sleep for a week. Ooohhh you nasty spiteful beast. I hate you!


Aaaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can you bear to make such a public idiot of yourself, now?

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bert
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 12:58 PM

How can you bear to make such a public idiot of yourself, now?

Well I don't like thieves. I guess you guys do.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 02:42 PM

I suppose I could endeavour to explain to poor old Bert what a non sequitur is; but there is a limit to the time & effort that can be wasted in battering one's head against a brick wall of incorrigible self-satisfied stupidity.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 06:42 PM

Bert, I could tell you exactly where half a dozen thieves live because I happen to keep abreast of what goes on locally.

So, if I published their addresses on a website, I might expect a civil suit against me for libel, but nobody in their right mind would call me an accomplice.

That is what you are doing!

The man in question didn't authorise, nor did he steal, he simply publicised.

I hate thieves every bit as much as you, so I ask again why do you want your authorities to hound this one man who is easier to catch than the genuine villains, but is not himself a villain.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Bert
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 10:44 PM

What he did was give the address of a website from which stuff could be stolen.

Kinda like him publishing your address and saying "this guy has a load of valuable musical instruments that should be worth a quid or two"

Quite honestly I am sick and tired of being ripped off and I don't have much time for those who condone it.

If you don't like the idea of him being extradited then you should perhaps be asking the British Government why they allow him to aid and abet criminals instead of complaining that someone wants to bring him to justice.

You guys remind me of that old joke about a guy who got mugged, and a couple of sociologists find him lying bleeding in the gutter. They look at him and one turns to the other and says "The guy who did this really needs our help".

Only difference is that a face to face mugging is a lot more honest than sneaking around behind the anonymity of the internet and inciting someone else to do the dirty work.

If you want to be tarred with the same brush, just keep up the good work.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 08:15 AM

Copyright law differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Not all reproductions of copyright works are restricted by copyright.
In the US for example there is a general "fair use" exemption - which the UK does not have.
In the US there is a general "private use" exemption - which the UK does not have.
The duration of copyright in the USA in a number of cases differs from the UK.
The US law on devolution of copyright differs substantially from the UK.
The US law on copyright (or similar rights) in physical models differs considerably from the UK - see the "Star Wars" case.
Even where there is an infringment of copyright, it may be easy to see where the reproduction took place, but it may be very hard to see what amounts to "authorisation" and if there was "authorisation" where it took place.

Bert, you really need to learn something about the law of copyright (and even criminal law) before pontificating.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 08:36 AM

Deaf ears I'm afraid Richard!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 08:56 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/22/lib-dem-donor-michael-brown-extradited?fb_action_ids=3498489952433&fb_action_types=news

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: GUEST,Dazbo at Work
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 07:54 AM

Bert,

How do you feel about someone in the US publishing on the Internet the name of a person in the UK that the UK courts have forbidden to be published (for whatever legal reason such as one of our Super Injunctions)? Surely in your logic our court's ruling trumps your Freedon of Speech amendment and that person should be extradicted to UK to face the full force of the law.

If you, on the other hand, think that as British Courts have no jusridiction in the US and that the US Constitution is paramount then you must be one A1 hypocrite. If not I applaud your evenhandedness in your beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Extradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 10:48 AM

Dazbo - it's still a matter of where the offence is committed. It's quite clear that a publication in breach of injunction is a contempt at each place of publication - so founding jurisdiction there. Equally a person subject to personal jurisdiction may be charged in that personal jurisdiction.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I thought I'd clarify that.