[okamiueru]

> Google is just as guilty by this precedence being set.

I beg to differ. Google might be guilty of this, since google has business in the US. However, as far as I understand, this wasn't illegal in the UK, and as a UK citizen, running a server in the UK, you have to be able to feel safe from prosecution, as long as you follow the laws in your country.

So, I'd say, if anything, google might be guilty, this guy isn't... well, unless you claim that he is guilty according to US laws, but that's just plain silly.

What if I had to be extradited to a different country, where being an atheist is considered a crime?

[Zenst]

beg all you like but I see no difference between Google offer a search engine that points to content, same as this chap did with torrent links. That is the comparision.

[mryan]

There is a difference, even if you are unable see it. Consider this:

Is linking to copyrighted material Google's sole purpose?

Was linking to copyrighted material the sole purpose of TVShack?

The intent of the person behind the site is clearly important here. Intent is definitely taken in to consideration in cases such as this.

Just for the record, I don't think he should be extradited to the US over this. But I do think his intention was to make money from adverts that were posted next to copyrighted material. Is that a crime in the UK? I don't know, but it is a question that should be answered by the UK courts.

[okamiueru]

My point is that "guilt" should be determined by the laws of the country you reside in. Even if google is guilty of it (I'm not saying they are), it doesn't mean this guy is. Why? Because they abide by different laws, since they are governed by different laws.

To me, this is as preposterous as if Norway had strong ties with some Muslim country, and extradited me because of caricatures of Muhammad.