> "for his involvement in the Sparks Group, an international piracy group that illegally distributed movies and television shows on the Internet."
(from the announcement) in case you were wondering if this was some "simple" torrent usage or what...
> "In furtherance of its scheme, the Sparks Group fraudulently obtained copyrighted DVDs and Blu-Ray discs from wholesale distributors in advance of their retail release date by, among other things, making various misrepresentations to the wholesale distributors concerning the reasons that they were obtaining the discs prior to the retail release date."
They bought DVDs with a paper trail, shipped them internationally, ripped them and then uploaded to scene sites with photos of the retail packaging. Not difficult to see how they got caught.
One can't help but feel sorry for them. Commercial copyright infringement in the states probably carries a $1e308 financial penalty and/or life imprisonment. The fact that the article is written about a UK national just highlights the asymmetry in the treaty – meanwhile, US citizens can literally get away with manslaughter [1] without being extradited...
For the record, I was joking – if the sentences were served sequentially the article implies that the person extradited would be on the hook for a 30 year sentence. My perhaps unfair "joke" was supposed to be hinted at the ~floating point overflow fine at the same time. (For the record, I think this is utterly disproportionate to the crime – they certainly did not cause Hollywood multi-million losses.)
The reason behind my perhaps slightly uncouth reference to the Death of Harry Dunn [1] was because 30 years is nearly double that faced by the US citizen who killed him, refusing to return to the UK as "the potential 14-year sentence [is] not proportionate" as it "would not usually result in a prison sentence in the US" [her lawyer, also 1]. I find it very interesting (as a commentary on the role of media, technology, and incentives in society) that using DeCSS and creating a torrent is apparently punishable by a long gaol sentence, yet negligently killing someone is apparently not.
Anyway, another poster has subsequently pointed out that I am wrong to draw this conclusion as a different treaty was used -- and, I should probably not overly politicise HN either -- my apologies for both.
No, it doesn't show much of anything about the US-UK treaty because that treaty wasn't used. They were extradited from Cyprus, which is noted in the article (reproduced below). I would agree that the handling of the Sacoolas situation was very problematic.
> OIA also provided critical support in working with Eurojust and Europol in planning the coordinated operation in August 2020 and provided critical assistance in securing the defendant’s extradition from Cyprus.
Your comparison between vehicular homicide and commercial copyright infringement would work better if the perpetrator of the former were not protected by diplomatic immunity.
(1) "In court papers, the former Foreign Office (FCO) minister Tony Baldry said the diplomatic immunity deal reached in 1995 was intended specifically to exclude dangerous driving cases, or indeed any actions not related to the work of the staff at the base"[1]
(2) Even if (1) were not the case, there have been documented cases where the US has "put pressure" on genuine diplomats working on US soil who have committed offences in order to be able to prosecute in the US (something about a Georgian diplomat in 1997 IIRC). Why should the rest of the world be subjected to "do as I say, but not as I do" with the US ?
(3) What about that stupid "surprise surprise" show Trump attempted to put on at the Whitehouse ? I mean that's just sticking two-fingers up in the air to the UK family by saying "well, you can meet the perpetrator who's waiting in the next room ... ready to shed some crocodile tears for the cameras".
Diplomatic immunity is intended to prevent the host country (the UK) from subjecting diplomats to unreasonable detention, imprisonment etc, or to protect them from work done as part of their job (the host country might consider it spying).
Responsible countries either waive the diplomatic immunity, or prosecute the offender in their own courts. The USA has done neither.
In 2002, a Colombian diplomat had his immunity waived, allowing the UK to prosecute him for manslaughter. [1]
I'd like easier to buy or rent DVD's. The DRM in it has been broken for so long that it is basically DRM-free and the quality is good enough for most of mine entertainment purposes. I fear streaming services will make buying DVD's harder.
Are Blue-Ray as easily watchable as DVD's these days?
The DRM on blurays has been broken for over a decade now. The newer 4K blurays are a pain though, there are only a few drives that work and you will probably need to reflash the drive firmware.
(from the announcement) in case you were wondering if this was some "simple" torrent usage or what...
> "In furtherance of its scheme, the Sparks Group fraudulently obtained copyrighted DVDs and Blu-Ray discs from wholesale distributors in advance of their retail release date by, among other things, making various misrepresentations to the wholesale distributors concerning the reasons that they were obtaining the discs prior to the retail release date."