[azalemeth]

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...

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-5122826...

[unity1001]

> life imprisonment

Life imprisonment for copying digital bits. Less than that for premeditated murder.

US justice system does not serve justice or the people. But the corporations.

[azalemeth]

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn

[vinay427]

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.

[vkou]

Your comparison between vehicular homicide and commercial copyright infringement would work better if the perpetrator of the former were not protected by diplomatic immunity.

[traceroute66]

> protected by diplomatic immunity

Aah yes, about that "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".

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/22/anne-sacoola...

[Symbiote]

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]

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2284320.stm

[HatchedLake721]

> Anne Sacoolas was not entitled to diplomatic immunity, as her husband was not listed as a diplomat.

[flir]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-57954...

I think it's very likely she was, in fact, a "diplomat" in the "they expel one of ours, we expel one of theirs" sense.

[royletron]

Oooh it's kickin off now.