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!