6 ms·
You could make the case there are victims in the US though, no? I don't support the concept of extradition (period, I think?), but there is a case to be made t
by gburt 15y ago
You could make the case there are victims in the US though, no?
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.
- mjwalshe 15y agoso if a murderer or rapist managed to leave the US would you still say so?
- potatolicious 15y agoNot the same though - if a murderer fled the US, the crime was still committed on US soil, by someone in the US at the time, against (presumably) a US resident/citizen. In other words, it's rightfully American business. 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!
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jQueryIsAwesome 15y agoSo before you say/publish anything in the internet you should read the laws of every country in the world? That is just plain nonsense.
- gburt 15y agoI suppose I'm talking morality more than legality.
- tankenmate 15y agoI hope for your sake you never say anything derogatory about the Thai monarchy.
- gburt 15y agoI'll concede my claim requires a belief in an absolute morality, which I don't necessarily, but take it my claim in the following form: 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")
- Kliment 15y agoIncidentally, this is what I found in the terms of service for a certain popular website. I alerted them to it, and they are looking into rewording it to be less absurd.