Check the photo. His bag strap makes his t-shirt look worse then it is.
Plus it's a pretty shitty thing to be happening.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:04, Reply)
The guy was warned, and made a ton of cash of the backs of other peoples work.
[edit] there is a reason why shadier parts of the net use .cc and .ru addresses.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:14, Reply)
genuine question - why is he being extradited and not tried in the Uk? I really dont get that part.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:32, Reply)
Same reason if your were you punch a bloke out in France you would be tried there.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:35, Reply)
Surely websites can be operated and maintained anywhere.
As far as I can tell, .com (commercial) doesn't even mean the company is American any more since the rules don't seem to be enforced.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:37, Reply)
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf
'TVShack.net and TVShack.cc “earning approximately £15,000 per month” from online advertisements'
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:44, Reply)
"However, wise though such entreaties plainly are, Parliament has made conduct found to be contrary to S.107 (2A) criminal. No court can change the statutory offence. The issue is whether the conduct actually alleged falls foul of S.107 (2A) not, as I fear Mr Cooper was urging, that no offence in law actually exists. It does exist unless or until S.107 (2A) is amended or repealed."
tl;dr This does look like a criminal offence under UK law, whatever people are saying in the press.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:17, Reply)
its like madeline mccann all over again.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:35, Reply)
not ball-gagged, sodomised & left chained up in Pissflaps' basement.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:36, Reply)
Others here can explain it better.
.cc and .ru are safe apparently.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:45, Reply)
And for it to be granted a whole other set of things have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Or it's arranged behind closed doors and then the facts are set posteriori.
EDIT: Scratch that about the request, seems like they can request one for any old bollocks.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:29, Reply)
I don't really want the guy to go to prison for 5 years, but he did do his damndest to piss them off. Twice. I have a limited amount of sympathy for his plight.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:32, Reply)
".... a 2004 treaty that means British suspects may be sent across the Atlantic without any test of the evidence against them."
Fuck.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:14, Reply)
It's fucking disgusting. If America just 'wants' someone, then our government just hands them over without trial....And they keep doing it.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:38, Reply)
Or he will get about a zillion years inside a supermax prison being gang raped and stabbed by pcmechanic daily.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:21, Reply)
making hollywood execs frightened in their beds that their business model is broken. Deserves nothing less than Gitmo.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:28, Reply)
not everyone who nicks their IP is a freedom fighter. This guy seems like a bit of a cock who did something he knew was unethical at least in order to make himself money.
What annoys me is that he strengthens the "let's censor and regulate everything" brigade in Washington, by being clearly in the wrong.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:37, Reply)
Seems to me that most of the rich people in the world have been unethical at one time or another. Pretty much a requisite for the job.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:44, Reply)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three
"The extensive news coverage of the Three in Britain resulted in a large-scale debate over the merits of their extradition to the United States under the then new Extradition Act 2003. In particular, a high profile campaign against the extradition was led by The Daily Telegraph newspaper.[66] Several arguments were raised against the extradition."
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:49, Reply)
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:50, Reply)
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:04, Reply)
3 people is a nice start but the rule still stands.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:08, Reply)
Will that be enough?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9139055/David-Cameron-not-sympathetic-to-plight-of-alleged-arms-dealer-Christopher-Tappin-ahead-of-Obama-meeting.html
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:13, Reply)
Pretty much anyone with a large amount of money has done something unethical to get it (or inherited it from someone who did something unethical).
Right now you're at 4 people who have been pulled up on it. 5 including this guy that's about to be extradited. This is not a societal trend you are highlighting, it's just the rare few that get some sort of comeuppance.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:22, Reply)
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:31, Reply)
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:57, Reply)
You appear to be talking about something different.
Sorry for being under qualified to have a conversation with you.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:08, Reply)
"If everyone who did something they knew was unethical to make themselves money got this kind of attention then the world would be a very different place.
Seems to me that most of the rich people in the world have been unethical at one time or another. Pretty much a requisite for the job."
I guess you've been replying to a lot of different points in this thread so they might all be blending into one big thing for you, but this was point I was making and you haven't done a good job of refuting it.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:14, Reply)
See we can both make short snappy answers that don't contribute to the conversation.
Arn't we cleaver?
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:35, Reply)
this guy has essentially paved the way for them to make money in an entirely new way, has shown that it works, that there's a market for it and an eager audience, all they had to do was step in and make it work within their legal requirements and provide appropriate content and they could all be making cash money from their wares and his entrepreneurial endeavours.
But oh no, it's new, it's not how they're used to doing things, so send in the lawyers and fuck everybody involved up the arse as far as they can legally reach, after all since the internet started they've been losing money on declining sales and THIS must surely be the way forward!
Stupid fucking wankers.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:39, Reply)
Even if they take this guy to the cleaners.
Wipe him out for all his assets.
Sell every organ in his body.
They still won't make back the cost of one of the films he was ripping off.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:41, Reply)
I wish I'd've charged you for your username now!
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:52, Reply)
(folks at home I mean)it's just a darned site more efficient way of 'loaning the tape' by putting it online, but they're saying there's an audience that don't care about the quality of what they're watching, most people do, and if they like what they see low qual they may also buy it in full qual, I know I do, everyone knows you can't trust the movie trailers for a measure of content, so in fact they may be losing revenue by closing such sites down.
Have they checked that? Has anyone asked that question and looked into it? I bet not!
What if they could start showing full length movies at a deliberately lower quality for that very purpose and see what that does for sales? Is it very much different to folks being lent a DVD off a mate then deciding you want to own it? Or seeing it on TV?
Or just dig up all their older content of the type you usually only see on lower grade cheap content TV channels and let him use that, stuff that isn't making any noticeable profit anymore, people could watch those when they wanted and discover a few old gems which could again motivate sales, people demanding an old film they've discovered to be re-released, and you could also use it as a conduit for your new trailers and such and take a share of the advertising profits, it's zero effort he's already got the basic structure working and it's been proven.
Or you could put the guy in jail, whichever's easier...
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:02, Reply)
looks like I was wrong, could you call off tabby?
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:11, Reply)
Feel free to flounce, Toryboy.
Though, I must admit to having a foot in your camp: creative people do deserve to get paid for their work & not be lambasted for not wanting it freeely distributed.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:36, Reply)
Though I seem to have been jumped on round here for not crying about a little rich boy getting his fingers burned playing pirate for profit.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:38, Reply)
Oh so very much this!
Hollywood's business model is now officially outdated. People no longer flock to cinemas lioke they did in my youth and twenties. Technology is available to home users that cinemas would have killed for just ten years ago. I have an HD projector and screen in my own house - I have no need to go to the cinema any more even if it wasn't overpriced and inconvenient.
Hollywood can get behind the 'viewing from home via the internet' model - and sack their (pirate chasing) lawyers and their (region locking and staggered release) marketing executives in one fell swoop, thereby saving billions - or die.
Stark choice but people like netflix seem to be doing OK - if only hollywood would get with it we'd all see films as and when we liked, for a reasonable price, in the comfort of our own homes.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:23, Reply)
i live in the centre of london, super fast whizzy connection, and about 15 feet from the exchange (used to be fibre... but it was shit)
a buffering/or internet drop out mid film is unacceptable... we still need physical media or the ability to watch a completely downloaded film...
and what about my sister...loves films, lives rural...
the business model needs changing ill grant you... but remember not everyone has netflix/internet/hd projectors...
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:38, Reply)
a lot of internet somepeople dont have... and i fancy watching a film... in 2 days its not really the same as the cinema or buying a dvd from your nearest town (goodluck with that)
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:59, Reply)
I only use steam because I can make my own discs under their DRM.
Sadly with HMV, game, and gamestation going down the swanny the option to buy a disc is getting harder.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:11, Reply)
...If a film/TV show is supported by product placement, can the producers use illegal download figures to ask for more cash from the product placers?
"Dear Toyota. You paid $x for our 1,000,000 person audience to see your car in the latest episode of "House". We can now confirm that a further 200,000 people illegally downloaded/streamed this episode. Please find attached an invoice for $0.2x..."
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 12:54, Reply)
Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem".
"In general, we think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the U.S. release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable. Most DRM solutions diminish the value of the product by either directly restricting a customers use or by creating uncertainty."
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:06, Reply)
Netflix, iTunes, lovefilm all have digital download to name a few.
Not to mention many cable TV packagings include pay per few.
I like steam but I wouldn't suggest for a moment it's DRM free.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:18, Reply)
definitely a step in the right direction!
Quality is pretty darned poor for a fully paid up service tho, on most anyway, none seem to have quite got it right yet, but glad they're trying!
*edit* which I guess again proves my case a lil bit, if we aren't yet capable of putting films on online streaming commercially in a decent enough quality to be acceptable to the paying public, why are we suing the asses off those folks showing the dreadful quality stuff for free? If you can't yet provide a decent alternative that works, what sales are you protecting?
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:21, Reply)
thats 1080p quality levels.
of course you need to be able to handle that bandwidth on your side though.
I can get a 1.5gb UDK build downloaded in about 10 minutes but I have a good connection.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:28, Reply)
they seem to have pretty nasty problems of colour and shade, detail, it's not even as good as DVD quality on Lovefilm, like watchin an old VHS tape that's been stabilised in post, not great!
Netflix is better, my mate has it, but it still has problems, particularly with frame rate, not bad tho!
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:33, Reply)
It takes me about 20mins to download a film over her wifi, the bitch.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:45, Reply)
He is directly competing with pirates - it's about as easy to download a game on a torrent site as it is to download from steam, yet somehow he makes money hand over fist. He provides a service and people give him their money.
There isn't a way to get this kind of service for films or tv shows yet, I have to use a fucking VPN if I want to watch shows on hulu or netflix.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:25, Reply)
Very much that, the big companies and their silly global restrictions and public relations disaster teams of lawyers REALLY need to have a rethink, time advances, markets change, audience demands and needs change, and when you're not making enough profits from your wares no more suing every damned alternate or new media capable of supporting your content is NOT the way forward! FFS.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:19, Reply)
see napster and then itunes... Cos they did really badly out of it didnt they.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:55, Reply)
just because it involves the internet
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:43, Reply)
something that you've indulged in in your last post on /board
www.b3ta.com/board/10717038
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:45, Reply)
"TELL IT TO THE JUDGE!" Damn.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:11, Reply)
And why is my lovely otherwise quiet library full of noisy people right now, when i'm trying to waste my time on b3ta?
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:26, Reply)
because he's not making any direct income from the use or copying of copywrited material...
he might be DMCA'd but nothing more...
however sir, because you are hosting the content, and also generating ad sales... you might have to tell it to the judge...
and this kid did... because it was sustained piracy... not a single photoshop image.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:27, Reply)
...that me having seen this would make me less likely to buy their commercial product? Which is surely one of the things they have to prove, unless the US system is very different? (apologies, not too hot on how their legal code works on this)
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:56, Reply)
You can get drunk and go drive your car into a crowded footpath and you'd get off with less.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:47, Reply)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17349774
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:58, Reply)
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:01, Reply)
You raised the point of punishment fitting the crime, and it's a crime. Perhaps i'm agreeing with you
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:06, Reply)
Maybe we're talking past each other a bit here.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:10, Reply)
I just think it's a bit unrealistic to throw six thousand years at a middle aged human being
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:17, Reply)
His sentence was over 200 years but nobody was saying "This is a farce, he'll never live that long", they were saying "Good, he'll never come out of jail alive".
As that article says, it is largely a symbolic sentence.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:20, Reply)
if somewhat of a non-sequitor in regards to the whole subject.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:06, Reply)
Laws not just protect people from crime, they also help to preserve vast fortunes, and people with vast fortunes generally have great and disproportional influence in the legislative process. (take the tories, for instance)
so I support this poor fucker in his bid to steal some cash off the networks, and hope he has a damn good lawyer
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:13, Reply)
We need more middle class rich boys making money of shit they didn't make to really show the man
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:18, Reply)
and if middle class ikea-buying vauxhall-driving mock-tudor-bungalow-in-the-home-counties-living white boys want to steal from the networks (or the worthy "creative industries", sorry), then I'll support them too.
I can understand big companies and the super-rich protecting their interests (understanding doesn't imply approve). It's apologist such as yourself I've never been able to figure out. I guess some people like to imagine themselves as part of a class they'll never be a part of
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:23, Reply)
Fuck it, need to work so i'm pulling a Tab and flouncing this one.
People don't want to pay for their shit, up to them.
Just don't be moaning when the only people making anything creative are on youtube doing it for free or fast made copy and past bollocks spaffed out of hollywood.
Musics already gone to shit, films next.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:27, Reply)
I'm beginning to realise that I don't like him very much
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 12:26, Reply)
How is the new model of I want shit for free any better? It's like the free software brigade working at their tenured University jobs telling everyone software should be free.
Who is going to pay to make it? Crowd sourcing? Micro payments? Seriously?
I've got an awesome idea lets make movies like the internet is nowdays, adverts obscuring 50% of what you see, paying to get rid of adverts, adverts at the top bottom and side of every movie, every movie being some fucking rube goldberg machine to sell you booze or a car (fuck you Okay Go) all filmed on a Go Pro by needy under skilled hipsters showing us grown men on tiny bicycles in slow motion.
and relax
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 16:29, Reply)