Since it's illegal in Britain also, would it not make more sense (and be way less sketchy) to prosecute the guy in Britain?
If it's not in the public interest to do it in the UK, why is it in the public interest to do it in the USA? It seems to me that the judge is contradicting the crown here, which seems a bit off, even if you assume it's his right to do so.
The judge, theoretically, is more of the expert on the law and whether it should be tried - but the CPS have to decide to bring the prosecution to him/her. Which is why you regularly get cases that should be seen in court, but which a suit decides is statistically unlikely to prosecute favourably.
Wouldn't that provide an avenue of relief to the copy right holders without removing a UK citizen from the jurisdiction of UK laws?
This whole thing seems troubling to me.
How many US Internet companies collect VAT from sales to folks in the UK? Would that make founders of a US startup subject to extradition to the UK for tax avoidance? What if it's just a tiny DBA "company" with no liability shield?
The whole thing smells rotten to me!
Unfortunately, there's no clause in the Extradition Act in power at the moment which allows a public interest defense, so it's not the job of the judge to decide such an issue. The forum clause (linked to a bit further down) would change this.
I don't support the concept of extradition (period, I think?), but there is a case to be made that the U.S. is aiming to protect its citizens (the media companies in this case) against wrongs.
1. You believe that copyright infringement is a "wrong" committed by one party on another party (the victim).
2. A British national commits copyright infringement where the victim is in the United States.
3. The United States conceivably has a moral right to seek punishment against that British national.
I mean, to say otherwise would be to say that copyright existed within a border. We have treaties explicitly so that isn't so - if there were a place in the world where copyright law didn't apply, you couldn't post things on the Internet and expect it to retain its copyright.
I don't support extradition in this case. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe in an absolute morality, and I'm not even sure I believe that intellectual property is a good idea on balance, but the moral argument can be made if you're willing to speak in more concrete terms (i.e., if you're willing to accept the premise that copyright infringement is a global "wrong")
The other country would simply be returning the person to the correct jurisdiction.
Note that even this is not clear-cut at all - many countries will refuse extradition even in this case if there is evidence that the person will face the death sentence or torture.
The USA simply doesn't have the right to prosecute crimes abroad, with no relation to the USA whatsoever - whether in defense of its citizenry or its corporations. That's what the whole concept of sovereignty is about!
However you expect you'll react though, it's well worth a read to get the whole story.
"In summary Mr Bridge contented that the prosecution of the defendants amounted to a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Mr Overton's right to freedom of speech. He said that The Guardian newspaper had carried an article dated 24th February 2007 describing TV-Links in detail. TV-Links did no more than any other TV listings site or indeed The Guardian newspaper. TV-Links merely expressed the fact that films could be accessed on other host sites."
"It was argued that TV-Links was in a similar position to Google or YouTube in that all of the material could be accessed by persons who used TV-Links could also be accessed through their use of those sites as well. ... The essential difference between TV-Links and sites that directly provide pirated material in breach of copyright (it was not suggested that Google or YouTube fall into this category) is that those other sites store the illegal material and make it available to users of the site. TV-Links did not store any such material. It was simply a sign post pointing the way to where such material could be accessed by those members of the public who chose to do so."
"The prosecutor in this case, he said, had a cast iron case against the viewers of the material accessed by the use of the TV-Links site and against the broadcasters of that material. He did not however have a case against the middle man, namely the defendants and who had not made available this material. The defendants themselves were not making available the copyright material."
I realise that having such a stake is not required by the Treaty, but perhaps it should be?
The forum clause, which was passed by both Houses, would require such a stake, but it hasn't been implemented by either the last government or the current one, apparently because it breaks the treaty we signed with the US which led to the act in the first place. A shame, because it looks eminently sensible to me: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/83A