Okay, I'll do my best to answer those and get things rolling in the direction you want...

Was there a crime?  Yes.  The movie studios and television studios make it perfectly clear that distribution of their produced works is only allowed through authorized distributors, which you and I are not authorized.  To further that, in the age of digital distribution, you also violate laws that say you cannot copy since in that distribution process, you're not merely transferring ownership of your copy, but creating a second, or third, or fourth copy and maintaining possession of yours.

They had this same issue when VHS was first coming to market, ultimately learning to take advantage of it rather then fight it.  Something that happened gradually, but they had the time to make that transition.  The difference here is that VHS, because it is physical media, was controllable, and reproductions of protected works took time and money, and each successive copy as you moved further and further away from the original, was degraded in quality to some degree based on the equipment used.  Eventually you reached the limits of acceptable quality, and you had to get a better source.  Such is not the case with digital distribution since you can make thousands of copies on the fly, there is no physical media to control, and quality does not degrade.

Having learned their lessons with VHS, when DVDs and CDs came to market, they employed the same strategies.  Again, the controllable factor was that there was physical media that added time and cost to the copy process.  They even acknowledge their concerns over the fact that successive copies did not degrade like VHS, but implemented rudimentary controls at best since it did work.  Controls like region codes on DVDs, intentional bad data blocks that do not carry over to copies (playstation games for example), and probably the worst thing, producing CDs filled with songs of little interest to all but the most hard core of fans, reducing the want for a copy (which also hurt sales).  This false sense of security lulled them to sleep and they failed to stay ahead of technology.  As more people became connected, and internet speeds picked up, rather then being proactive, they waited.  That ultimately has cost them.  The old saying goes: "An ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure."  Right now, they are dumping millions, if not billions into curing the problem, rather then jumping on and creating a digital distribution system back in the early to mid 90's when being online really started to take off.  Worse, the movie studios knew what was happening to the music industry and still took the wait and see approach.  Stupidity does have a price.  They know this quite well now...  I hope.

Where is the crime? It's in the economics.  In this case, and those like it, there is a long chain of businesses not receiving income for that CD or DVD you would have purchased in order to watch the movie or listen to the music, or at the very least, the money paid to an authorized digital distributor who has negotiated with the producer to ensure they receive money for their works that they can pass along down to the artists who negotiated their pay for their time and talent.  iTunes, for example.

Who should prosecute?  The holder of the rights, in an international court.  Federal prosecutors should only be used as support, and not the main force behind the case, just as it would be in a domestic court case.

As for IP rights, I feel research should be exempted from the threat of litigation.  Health, technology, science in general shouldn't be hamstrung by lawyers.  If a company like Glaxosmithkline wants to protect a drug that they are bringing to market that prevents blood clotting in high risk stroke patients, I'm perfectly fine with that.  If McNeil wants to delve into breast cancer research, let them regardless of what Myriad Genetics claims is their property.  If AMD's next processor architecture is vastly superior to Intel's, let AMD patent the processor and make truck loads of cash because of it, but let Intel take it apart and learn why it's all of a sudden so much better.  If SpaceX creates a viable way to continuously send people into space and bring them back safely, and for as cheaply as a round trip plane ticket to a destination half way around the world, let them patent the technology used, however, don't prevent Virgin Galactic from using that equipment as a jumping off point to create something better.  Selling at market isn't the same thing as doing research.  Patents are there to protect one's rights to make a profit.  It shouldn't be used to prevent advancements in life.

As for 'this little guy', in this case, no, he doesn't deserve protection from copyright laws.  He is stealing from the rightful distributors.  He himself is not profiting from it, but he is directly responsible for reducing profits of the rightful distributors.  I could pity him if he was stealing bread from the local market and breaking into the laundry room of a nearby apartment complex because he was homeless and hungry.  But this isn't food and shelter.  He's not stealing a basic need, he is stealing (or at the very least, enabling others to steal through him) entertainment products.  I'm not saying that stealing food is right, even if you're starving, but I'm not heartless, I can take pity on someone who does that.  This?  It's not the same.  I wouldn't expect the world to stick up for me if I was busted for file sharing. (That's not an admission of guilt, just a statement of my position.)

I agree with Stant123 but I don't see why I can't make a back up copy for myself in case the origional gets messed up.

He's British and should be trialed in Britain. Such as Gary Mckinnon, who is fighting an extradition case to the United States.

I think the High court of England should decide this case, not American companies.

Too be honest, I would love to see them attack china over copyright LOL!

My feelings run pretty parallel to stant123's as well.

Wish there were more participants.

I also agree with stant123

First off: was a crime committed?  Maybe.

He didn't host or distribute any of the illegal distribution himself, so in a direct sense he didn't commit copyright infringement.  If the simple act of linking to another site is enough to trigger criminal copyright infringement, then that would be huge liability for just about every service provider on the internet.  However, he may have induced or aided copyright infringement either actively or through negligence.  The character of his dealings on his site, and how he dealt with requests from rightsholders, and the requirements placed upon him by the laws of his own jurisdiction would determine whether a crime has been committed.  I do not believe that any of us here are in a position to make a definitive statement, and I believe the only agency that can make that call is a court of law in Britain.

Second issue:  where?  Britain.

Laws vary from one country to the next, and it is impossible to police the internet while respecting every single jurisdiction on Earth.  Nor will you ever get everyone to agree on what constitutes a crime, or what the penalties for infractions should be.  I believe that people should be charged in the jurisdiction in which they reside, and servers shut down in the jurisdiction they reside.  The courts of each country are ultimately responsible with enforcing the laws on their own inhabitants and industries.  The guy lives in Britain, operated in Britain, and had no substantial economic dealings in the United States.  As far as I'm concerned, they have no jurisdiction to request his extradition. 

Third issue:  how does this relate to IP rights?  how does it not?

This case is just more emphasis that today's society doesn't know how to deal with the changing application and needs of copyright.  We don't know how to deal with the fact that information now knows no borders, we don't know how to deal with the fact that copyright infringement has effectively zero operational costs and can be done non-commercially by individuals without any real expenditure of capital.  Nor have we really come to terms with the scale of infringement today; even if everyone could be charged it would clog up the court system and probably lead to a political backlash that could bring legitimacy to "abolish copyright" movements.  As much as I think the current structure of copyright law is outdated and ineffective, it's certainly much better than nothing.

However, with respect to today's copyright laws, I believe it is the duty of rightsholders to police their own works.  Only a rightsholder is in a position to know what is legitimate promotional content being distributed for free, and what's an illegitimate distribution channel.  Service providers should be in a position where they must respond reasonably to rightsholders notices, but also to counter-notices from users.  The service provider is the intermediary, and so long as they act in good faith they should not be subject to legal liability (otherwise we're harming innovation on that front). 

You need to set that up as a separate post in either politics or philosophy.

Situational ethics.  The truth is they either are or are not.  Both represent a person's time and talent and just compensation.  It is our judgement system that then decides what is more valuable or not.  However the principal is the same.  You either support them or you do not.

I don't think so, Dr Guy. There are situations in which there is not a 1 or a 0, black or white. This isn't Boolean Algebra... closer to fuzzy logic.

I do support copyright protection, but not where it prevents people from lifesaving treatment. That's unconscionable, and is in a completely different ethical sphere from protesting the rights of a painter, for example simply because we are talking about life and death in some cases. As with most things, common sense should have a place in our thinking, as well as property rights. In real property ownership, there is a concept of "eminent domain"....

Dunno about a country, but an Aussie court told the US to piss off with regard to iinet.com.au.  The RIAA and movie equivalent charged that iinet allowed/encouraged piracy because it never issued warnings to users who illegally downloaded music and/or movies.  The court ruled that iinet, as internet providers, it must comply with Australian privacy laws and therefore cannot act as internet police and cannot be held responsible for users habits.

As for this bloke in England, throw the book at him... in his own country... with respect to what he actually did [provide links] and not some trumped up bullshit the legal eagles decide is appropriate.

As for US authorities acting on foreign soil... nope, eff off.  If anyone in the US has a bitch with an Aussie citizen/resident, let them contact our authorities and take it from there.  Same with any sovereign nation, go through the proper channels. I don't think you in the US would want our/their law enforcement people running around your country arresting/prosecuting your citizens, so do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Yes, I heard about that iinet.net.au stuff.  And it's not good to have other countries' people breaking jurisdiction.  People used to care about jurisdiction, it's good to know the US doesn't anymore.

Best regards,
Steven.

I know that a lot of US business, the MPAA and RIAA specifically in this case, are pushing US law enforcement to do something about it because as they say it, it's a US product, with US and International protections, but nobody from the international side of things is doing anything about it, and as is the case with iinet for example, the companies going to the people who can do something about it are futile efforts because they hide behind their own laws and regulations, so we need our people to do something about it.

And they wouldn't be wrong.

Basically, these are protected works that aren't being protected.  People are using borders to claim they have a right to do what they are doing completely forgetting about the International copyright laws.  I don't blame them for ignoring those because it's well established that they don't mean a damned thing since movies and music can be traded freely in countries with loose policies all the while hurting the business in the US.

For a record label in the US, it's a pretty difficult position to be in.  You want to sell your artist's works, but you know that all someone has to do is take the CD, cross the border into Canada, and it can be put on the net and passed around without violating Canadian law.  Someone could take it to Australia and make 'back up' copies even though the copyrights specifically state you cannot because Australian law says it's okay.  All of a sudden, your sales start to drop off.  An album that could have gone platinum multiple times over barely get's gold.  You can sit there and say well, they're greedy anyway, they have lots of money, they covered all of their costs the first day of release.  Sometimes that's true, but only for the popular artists.  What about the not so popular ones, what about the new ones no one has ever heard of before except for some music exec at a high school or college theater production or recital who thinks that person has a great voice...  These are people who will NOT get their chance because the industry will adopt internal policies that basically say if we can't make our money back in the first few days of public release before this stuff hits the net, then we're not going to sign this artist...  It would be too risky to do business with unproven talent.  That translates into less music.  Less ground breaking sounds.  Less creations that just blow your mind because its so fresh and new and unlike anything you've heard before...

Most of the nay-sayers or those against the US law enforcement from going after people who willfully violate the laws are people who clearly are not linked to the otherside of the debate, nor have even bothered to consider what might happen in the future if things continue on the way they are.  How would you like it if the movie and music industries adopted the video game policies for DRM?  In order to play a CD or DVD, your player must connect to their servers and must remain connected for the duration of you playing the CD or DVD, or BluRay?  What if you had to buy special players that will automatically detect when their internal software or hardware has been modified and automatically permanently shut down?

You'd be screaming that it's total bullshit that you have to buy all new players and can't use it in your car, or play it over at your buddy's place.  It will go that way if countries aren't willing to help alleviate the problem.  I sure as hell don't want it to go that way because I wouldn't buy anything that had that type of steamlike protection.  Sure hackers and their ilk will find cracks for it, but what about the average consumer?  Those that actually do have a social conscience?  They must suffer the excess protections because of lack of international cooperation...  Is it really that hard for a nation like Great Brittan to say, 'This is a clear violation of their copy right laws and it wouldn't be right of us to allow this to go on the way it is.  If it was one of our businesses suffering because of someone in the US doing this, we'd expect their cooperation and support in the matter.'  Is it really that hard for the Australian courts to say, 'No, we can't let our ISPs regulate content.  HOWEVER, this court's ruling is that the matter is being turned over to the Federal Police for investigation and due process according to Australian and International laws.'  That is a far better answer then a straight, nope, you get no help here, go back home.

What is being demanded by the RIAA and MPAA are far in excess of the requirements of international copyright law.  Many of the services and behaviors they reject to are perfectly legal in other countries.  The current laws on the books in the United States are much stricter than required under international copyright law, so many countries will be far more lenient.

This is incorrect.  Even ignoring the copyright reform legislation pending, distributing copywritten works over the internet is currently illegal in Canada and there are well-defined legal channels to shut them down.

The only significant legal loophole we have currently is that you can loan a physical disk to someone else, they can make a copy of it, and then return the disk to you while retaining the copy.  This loophole will be closed shortly, and because it only applies to loaning original physical media it's mostly symbolic anyways since it's utterly unenforceable.

Also incorrect; once sold, copyright is exhausted.  You can create copies for personal use as much as you like, so long as you don't distribute them to other people.  In recent years, there has been the claim that rightsholders can "license" a work to restrict end-user rights, but this interpretation has not been upheld in all instances and jurisdictions, and remains an area of legal uncertainty.  It also will be heavily influenced by contract law, which can vary dramatically.

Also wrong; music sales are up despite piracy.  Sales of albums are down, but this is due to people moving towards services like iTunes where they're more likely to buy individual tracks than an entire album.  This is a statistical sleight of hand, pointing to the one area where music sales are down to paint the current situation as catastrophic, ignoring the fact that music sales overall are up. 

They're actually doing way better than ever.  Digital distribution has lowered costs and increased competition, so they can access wider markets that were formerly unavailable to them and take a bigger share of revenues.  It's never been a better time to be a little guy.  The only segment of the music industry that is down is albums, everything else is at an all-time high. 

This has nothing to do with stopping piracy and everything to do with shutting down innovative competitors.  DRM has been an abysmal failure at controlling distribution, but has proven very useful as a legal tool for attacking new inventions that technically bypass digital locks.  This is about creating legal barriers to new and innovative technologies that could compete with older business models.  Rather than fostering innovation, protecting intellectual property through legally-enforced technical protection measures is hindering it.

Implementing protections that are too strong has the potential to shut down new and innovative services.  The goal of copyright law is to strike a balance between the rightholders, consumers, and intermediaries that offer services.  Every country will strike a different balance, and I think there's a wide range of policies with different strengths and drawbacks.  We need to accept that different jurisdictions will have different policies, and international law should set bare minimum standards that leave a wide range for individual national policies.

The United States currently has very stringent laws on the books.  I'd argue that they're much too strong, and are choking out new and innovative services and treating legitimate consumers like criminals.  If the sky really were falling and the music industry was on the brink of collapse and no one was making music anymore, then you'd have grounds to argue for stronger protections.  But this isn't the case; music is prospering around the globe in spite of rampant piracy.  If anything, what we're seeing right now indicates that these draconian "protections" are completely unnecessary and may be counter-productive by discouraging innovation in other fields.

I was told by somebody [can't vouch for the validity] that the Australian Federal Police turned up with US FBI agents next door too him to make arrests regarding illegal file sharing.  According to the informant, the FBI agents formed the case against his neighbour and only required the AFP to be there to execute the warrant... that once the paperwork was dispensed with the FBI agents did the actual arrest/cuffing.  If true, that's just not f**king right.  The Yanks wouldn't tolerate our law enforcement officials making arrests on their soil, regardless of the circumstances, and they have NO business doing so here.

I think we will see more of the United Nations police force Interpol doing this more and more.
http://www.justice.gov/usncb/ 

Here is the Interpol site page on there upcoming IP cooperation for member countries.
http://www.interpol.int/Public/FinancialCrime/IntellectualProperty/Default.asp 

Not to sure on the following links integrity yet 

Interpol Immunity from US law
http://www.hudson-ny.org/990/interpol-immunity

also liveleak reports
Obama grants INTERPOL diplomatic immunity, freedom from US Law 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7b3_1262648082 

I had just started some research for a friend on this and no conclusions or opinions yet, just more questions.

It was my understanding the Interpol was only investigative and not boots on the ground. It was also new to me that Interpol has a permanent position now in the US. Now I see a video showing the UN partnering with Interpol and training almost 20,000 boots on the ground police for "peace keeping" missions and conflict places. These police do not look like police, they look like military with machine guns.

I guess the next G20 summit in Canada will now have UN jackboot thugs bashing me on the head and my government will not even be allowed to investigate.