Copyright Infringement. Be careful who you linking with. Jail possible...

New bill upgrades unauthorized Internet streaming to a felony

Here's the bill. It's a felony
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Not sure which would be more embarrassing - doing something foolish like opening a new site when you know you are in trouble...or being 23 and having your mother speak for you

'This guy knew what he was doing - he was linking to sites giving away pirated material. We're told he didn't host in the U.S. - but we aren't told who owned the rights to the pirated products.'

So charge MSN Bing. they link to sites giving away pirated materials. Any 12 year old knows how to type the word 'torrents.'

NEWS: He last his case in court today
can appeal but not looking good

'Piracy' student loses US extradition battle over copyright infringement | Law | The Guardian

An are you qualified to interpret the law? Somehow I doubt it.

If you are providing links to a site where you KNOW the material being distributed is pirated product - you are not an innocent bystander.

This might have been over when the first site was shut down - except the idiot just started another site immediately doing the same thing.

He won't be extradited - but his life will be disrupted. If you are going to operate on the edge - at least man up when you are called out on it.

Please reference

BBC News - Student faces US extradition over copyright charges

paragraph 7

I presume, if he's found guilty of conspiracy that opens the door for the criminal infringement. (Not a lawyer). I presume, based on his sequence of actions US Prosecutors feel he intended to willfully help people steal by creating a convenient hub to do so. One from which he also profited. (Again, not a lawyer).

Rashell

Kay,

You're only seeing things from a US perspective, which is fair enough (since that's where you are).

However, the Gary McKinnon case (which is the one you alluded to) hasn't continued for so long because the British are letting him "play the system". It has been going on for so long because, to be honest, the British Courts are as uneasy about the present US-UK extradition treaty as the general population is. The problem is that it (the treaty) allows the US to accuse Britons of crimes in US jurisdiction often based on little more than the accusation itself (and, in some cases, based on nothing at all, given that certain evidence can be withheld on national security grounds). However, there's no real quid pro quo; for example, the US has refused for many years to even consider the extradition of Americans (and some non-Americans living in the US) accused of terrorism offences in the United Kingdom.

The ill-feeling about such an unbalanced relationship among the British population is being further driven by frequent media editorial and opinion on that very fact. They all ask why are the Americans demanding the extradition of Britons accused of crimes that are substantially lower down the scale in seriousness compared to those Americans that it refuses to extradite to Britain, despite, in some cases, literally reams of evidence against them (quite a bit of which was provided to the British by the Irish government, just in case you're wondering where my interest in this comes from). And, there's a common (although mostly incorrect) perception that the US expects immediate compliance by Britain with it's demands too, which only serves to inflame ill-feeling among the (British) public even further.

And, to makes things worse, since the new government took power in the UK last year, quite a few British politicans have begun to speak out against the present treaty with the US. If the US continues to pursue such "lesser" (alleged) criminals, while still continuing to refuse to extradite certain Americans accused of terrorism, then quite a few (much more senior) political figures will likely be joining them, spurred on by increased ill-feeling among the public and the media, until things ultimately reach breaking point, at which stage I believe that, unless it can be amended to become more balanced, the British government may feel compelled to simply tear up the current treaty altogether, a move that will not only be damaging to trans-Atlantic relations, but would likely allow people who really should face extradition to completely avoid it.

None of the above is meant to imply that genuine criminals shouldn't be extradited where appropriate... only that things aren't always as black and white as they seem on the surface.

No. I did YOURS. That's why I quoted yours and even referenced what I was talking about.

Is the BBC reliable enough for you?
BBC News - Student faces US extradition over copyright charges