US Government Seeks Extradition of UK Student For File-Sharing 409
Gimble writes "The BBC reports that UK student Richard O'Dwyer has lost a legal battle to block his extradition to the U.S., where he faces copyright infringement charges for running a file sharing site (ruling). O'Dwyer operated the site 'TV-Shack' from 2007 until 2010, which didn't offer any files itself, but posted links to streams and files hosted elsewhere. O'Dwyer was first arrested in June last year by British police acting on information from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The domestic investigation was subsequently dropped, but Mr. O'Dwyer was re-arrested in May on an extradition warrant to face charges in America."
Well. this will be a first... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well. this will be a first... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well. this will be a first... (Score:5, Funny)
your honor, the defendant was accused of blocking banner ads. I see full punishment. this crime can't go unpunished.
our client paid good money to have those forced on the defendant. our client was defined its god given right to advertise and annoy.
I seek full damages on this case, your honor. (check the suitcase to your left; yes, that's the one you can take home with you.)
thanks for your consideration. oh, you're welcome, too. (see you on the green next wednesday?)
Re:Well. this will be a first... (Score:4, Insightful)
Next up: Extradition because you violated a website's policies.
Sadly, that's a possibility [slashdot.org]
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Insightful)
I appreciate the importance of copyright as the *right* level of IP protection, in contrast to patents
But the actions of the RIAA and all the rest are so mean spirited and personal even I am going to stop going to movies and buying RIAA music in protest
Sorry, but it seems to me you have a value / price problem, not a piracy problem.
You need to put your price and value proposition at a point where people are less inclined to steal .
People take things that they're barely interested in just to have them, then someone has something they didn't pay for - I get it.
But a business's concern is with making money from their product by meeting the market where it wants to be. If you're doing that, the people who casually rip second quality copies of stuff they're barely interested in are not a real problem.
No market is perfectly efficient. There's a low level drag coming form somewhere at all times- from bad legislation, from their own employees productivity , from dishonest middlemen, from a million different places.
By the same token, businesses get huge boosts from employees who have brilliant flashes of creativity and productivity, long-term-thinking lawmakers, new innovations in the distribution chain and a million other synergies the companies themselves expended nothing to obtain.
So just step back from your time-wasitng, money-wasting abacus on which you're keeping track of all the injustices and slights you think randomo people are dishing out to you and get back to doing the hard work of figuring out what the market is trying to tell you.
Here's a hint- 16.99-18.99 for a fucking CD is too much money. And that's why I buy all mine used online.
Here's another hint. 10-15 bucks to see a movie is too much, and that's why I go see one with my family three or four times a year, if that.
That is, I used to do that. This year, no more movies.
Sorry but you've got to realize that trying to kill the messenger and hanging the pickpockets is not a way to equitable and prosperous society.
The way to a society in which people buy music and see movies is by increasing your value proposition to those people so they want to buy your product.
People LOVE to buy and own things; acquisition possession and pride of ownership are an inherent part of the human character.
HOW could you have fucked that up:????
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem now is even if everyone stops watching movies and listening to music RIAA and MPAA wil simply claim that it is because of the piracy and we need a media tax. Say 20% of your total income. Or 50%. That sounds fair. And if you don't like it, there is nowhere you can go, as US is expanding their policies bought by RIAA and MPAA and paid for by your money to other countries as well.
Re: (Score:3)
You must be new to this planet.
Short of a quasi or full revolution, it will happen if we refuse to use MPAA/RIAA content. They are the new mob.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be true, but they also have to recognize the fact that there are always going to be people for whom there is no reasonable value/price ratio they are willing to pay--and simply ignore them because they are an entirely lost cause. It may be who they are or it may be a transient circumstance that will change in the future; if it's the latter, these companies should want to ensure that when circumstances change, these pe
The answer is clear (Score:3)
Realize that being wealthy isn't just about having lots of money. Our money is fiat money and its value is volatile, so one must diversify one's holdings. Being wealthy is also about owning and controlling things that have value.
Digital data exactly qualifies. Everyone wants it, so it has tremendous value. Therefore, maintaining ownership and control over such data, while simultaneously deriving rent from it, keeps one a lot wealthier than simply selling it would.
Ev
Re: (Score:3)
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah they may in fact want to enslave everyone or at least get all our money or whatever it is that drives these types to such extreme measures but no one is going to facilitate that.
Don't copy their crap. Do something else. Make your own crap. Download Creative Commons crap. Support artists who aren't down with the RIAA.
They don't have any power if enough people stop don't buying their shit. Stop liking their shit more than you like justice. Get involved with other people online who create stuff outside of this greedy octopus.
THAT is what REALLY keeps them up at night. People just walking away.
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:4, Interesting)
Great ideas. Here's what's wrong with them, worst case scenario.
There are only a finite combination of notes playable on a scale, only so many ways they can be combined. Case in point, Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen, but I digress. There are also only so many stories to be told. Ever notice how all the 'high school kid' movies are all alike? It's the same story told over and over.
Disney has looted everybody's childhood all over the globe and made cartoons of their favorite legends and bedtime stories, all in the public domain. They then proceded to copyright everything they could to 'secure' what they considered to be 'their' intellectual property. They tend to have fairly litigious and agressive attorneys. How long until every concept, every plot idea, every characterisation is is locked away in a Disney vault guarded by rabid lawyers? And even if you come up with what you think is an original idea, can you afford an attorney to prove it against what Disney et al can field against you?
Re: (Score:3)
I would be with you 100% if copyright were enforced with the same broad latitude afforded patents, but its not.
In a nutshell, you're free to retell Sleeping Beauty to suit yourself and sell it and profit from it. Disney HAS raided the collective cultural heritage for ideas, but they don't OWN those ideas the way ideas are OWNED in software patents.
The point about "so many notes" is interesting. There are not more or less notes, clefs, keys, time signatures and rhythms than there have ever been. yet w
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Funny)
I don't understand the process.
Doesn't the US just send a team of navy seals to pick up people they are after? I know that this case came up BEFORE Obama had that power (legally), but he does now, so this story is no longer relevant.
The kid will be taken to Gitmo and waterboarded until he confesses. After which he will just lay about in an orange jump suit until the end of time.
It could be worse, the Mossad could just take him out on the street in front of his house.
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:4, Funny)
Worse, he'll get free healthcare courtesy of the US government. Granted he'd get it in the UK, but none-the-less
Well, the pres and the PM always insist on everyone being healthy before they're broken. And no one withstands The Machine.
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the US backed out of their side of the deal. Now UK has extradition obligations to the US, but none the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
This raises the questions of a) why Julian Assange is still in the UK, and b) why is he so concerned about going to Sweden ?
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Insightful)
look, how many times do we have to go thru this.
'writing to your congressman' is an exercise in 2 things:
- getting your name on a 'watch list' of some kind, at some level
- wasting your time
unless writing the letter also includes a healthy sized check, your letter is less than useless. don't people KNOW this by now?
the connection between the people and the law-creating class is cut. has been cut for decades (maybe even a century or more, in fact). why we keep teaching this myth is beyond me. oh right, its in the law-creating class' *best interest* to keep this myth going. keeps people under the illusion that they have some say in their government.
writing to congress does no good. voting does no good as all parties want this kind of power. you won't get fixes from within the system, that's what I'm saying. to expect the system to fix itself is beyond absurd.
You folks really think this is "insightful"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just who is this "law-creating class" of whom you speak (they apparently aren't people)?
Your whole post is a cop-out. Everything is blamed on "the man", "the system", "the law-creating class". Well, these people are put in place by our votes, and their counterparts in business are made wealthy by our purchases.
Now, I'm not so naive as to believe that our politicians spend their time studying "The Federalist", Montesquieu, Locke, and Mill so they can become the most perfect expression of representative government possible. They spend their time trying to get re-elected. And a single letter to a congressman won't do anything, but a large number of such letters, accompanied by a substantial drop in the polls, will most definitely get their attention.
The problem isn't politicians per se. It is apathy and ignorance on the part of the public. If people cared about issues like this like they cared about their local sports team, the politicians would act accordingly, because otherwise they would lose their jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry this is just too stupid and destructive to let slip by.
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Insightful)
Historians of the future are going to have a field day with present day USA. Hollywood, that dinky little movie making town, part of the city of Los Angeles, bought the US gov't to the point Hollywood could compel the extradition of web link posters from England, its former masters?!? What's next, the moon really is made of cheese? I thought 20th Century Prohibition was a stretch, but this is truly audacious.
I think that the framers of the Constitution should have spent less time worrying about the power of gov't, and a lot more on the power of lawyers.
USA: I commend your restraint. That you can watch this batshit craziness go on and still not implode is damned near amazing.
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Insightful)
That you can watch this batshit craziness go on and still not implode is damned near amazing.
Just wait another 5 years.
The IP war in the U.S. and other first world countries is this generation's equivalent to the space race of the former U.S.S.R. and (much of) the second world.
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the framers of the Constitution should have spent less time worrying about the power of gov't, and a lot more on the power of lawyers.
The framers did a good job in many respects, but they left a huge bug in the system of checks and balances: there is no penalty for legislators who propose and pass laws that are later declared unconstitutional. People like the SOPA/PIPA sponsors have no reason not to keep throwing crap at the wall, knowing that eventually outrage fatigue will set in and something will stick.
What's needed is to amend the Constitution to provide a way to slam the Overton Window shut on our legislators' fingers. If there were any sort of professional or personal sanction involved in authoring an unconstitutional bill, things would change in a hurry. (They might actually read what they're voting on, for one thing.)
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting as many people on the watchlist creates the fine-grained control the government appears to want. Seems that the powers-that-wanna-be took lessions from Lavrentiy Beria.
Comrade Beria was 'Uncle Joe' Stalin's hatchetman in the NKVD, precourser to the KGB. He came up through the Party ranks in the original 'Cheka' by reputedly setting up his superiors in some kind of scandal, usually coming up with evidence of sexual scandals, either real or manufactured. When his boss resigned in disgrace, Comrade Beria was standing there ready to go to work in his new job, usually purging possibly disloyal 'coworkers' in the process.
When 'Uncle Joe' died, Beria was the frontrunner to become the 'big boss' of the Soviet Union, until Nikita Khrushchev, Gregori Malenkov, and Vyacheslav Molotov (of 'Molotov Cocktail' fame) had him arrested on over 150 counts of rape, sodomy, child molestation, and abuse of office. In the 'investigation' that followed, he was tried for high treason and reputedly executed in December 1953, although apocryphal evidence claims he was actually shot and killed during his arrest in July '53.
Whether Beria did what they say he did is immaterial. The lession we garner from the events is, it just don't matter what you do, at the end of the day, if the powers-that-wanna-be want you bad enough, they'll find a way.
Re:that will tieup the courts and jury trials (Score:5, Informative)
Frankly the law in the UK is irrelevant. If he's broken it he should be charged and given a fair trial.
If he hasn't broken it then he shouldn't be persecuted.
I continue to completely fail to understand why the UK government thinks that operating a website from the UK, hosted in the UK, run by someone in the UK should come under US law and be a cause for extradition.
Ignorance of the law is no defence, but apparently this now extends to ignorance of the law of 217 countries.
It's utterly out of fucking order and sadly when I wrote to my MP he completely failed to get the point and replied with a comment on the fairness of the extradition treaty, and not the jurisdiction of the law alleged to have been transgressed. I'd write to him again but frankly he's a cunt. Yes Ken Clarke, I mean you. You're a cunt.
This was a Magistrates' Court (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worth keeping in mind that this decision was made in a Magistrates' Court. That is basically the lowest court in England: as the name suggests, most of the decisions are reached by magistrates, who are lay people offering their services rather than legally trained judges, and do not involve a jury. The penalties that can be handed down in such courts are also typically very limited compared to a Crown Court (to which more serious cases can be referred if the magistrates consider it necessary for the interests of justice because they cannot impose a sufficient penalty themselves).
It sounds like this wasn't a typical case for such a court, but the implication is still that this is only the first step down a long road. I imagine there are several rounds of appeals to go through before the guy in question is in any danger of actually leaving British soil. Those will involve a lot more people who are legally trained and who can spot the obvious (you would think) implication of allowing someone to be extradited for allegedly breaking a US law on British soil but not, apparently, a British one.
Re:This was a Magistrates' Court (Score:5, Informative)
It's worth keeping in mind that this decision was made in a Magistrates' Court. That is basically the lowest court in England... It sounds like this wasn't a typical case for such a court, but the implication is still that this is only the first step down a long road. I imagine there are several rounds of appeals to go through before the guy in question is in any danger of actually leaving British soil.
Extradition cases in England are always heard, by convention, in Westminster Magistrates' Court; they're in a Magistrates' Court because it's the appropriate level court, and in Westminster because that one has 'jurisdiction' over the government etc., so on that count, this is a typical case for the court, although it will rarely have to deal with copyright issues. However, you're right in that this will likely end up going through a few more courts before anything substantial happens.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I appreciate the legal position. I'm just observing that ethically, if we're talking about extraditing him to a system where he potentially faces a serious penalty, he should have a right to make a case before an English court with equivalent authority that he should not be extradited. Extradition is only a formality if you accept that the jurisdiction someone is being extradited to will deal with them as fairly as our own legal system, which is a very bad assumption for any legal system interested in
Re:This was a Magistrates' Court (Score:5, Interesting)
The UK has fairly similar copyright laws to the US. Running a torrent site probably isn't illegal in either country as it's only a link, not the actual file. But if it *IS* illegal in one then it's quite probably illegal in the other.
Morally it's all a bit of a mess. The movie and music industries are morally vaccuous, but that doesn't make this kid a good guy. If the accusation is right that he's made "over $230,000 in advertising revenue" from enabling other people to avoid paying for consuming the results of artistic creativity, then he's in the wrong too. However extraditing from a friendly nation with similar copyright laws seems to be vastly overstepping the mark.
Re: (Score:3)
Violating a website's policies may mean you're accessing their web server without permission.
That's illegal in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act.
I don't think anybody's ever been charged on those grounds but the British Government would happily ship their citizens out to face corrupt legal systems in other countries for that exact reason - Gary McKinnon's facing extradition precisely for alleged unauthorised access to US computers.
Sure, he wasn't merely accessing a website, but the applicable UK law is t
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well. this will be a first... (Score:4, Informative)
See section 5
Re: (Score:2)
"what have we become ?"
Nations who enter into treaties with one another and then abide by the terms of those treaties?
Re:Well. this will be a first... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny you should mention that.
The entire framework of diplomacy and international relations is predicated on the principle of sovereignty, which is being joyously trampled here.
It just means that the UK is not a real country, but rather a protectorate or colony of the US. Here's to hoping the Scots wake up and head for the exit this time around.
Re:Well. this will be a first... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't usually reply to my own comments, but I realized I got distracted and forgot to present my argument. Here it is:
The extradition arrangement is not reciprocal.
Re:Well. this will be a first... (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is that "technically" it's reciprocal, a judge examining the treaty recently acknowledged this.
The problem arises that in practice (and the judge just looked at theory, not practice, which is where he went wrong), when the US thinks a UK extradition request stinks they tell us to fuck off and we say "Oh, alright then", but when the US send us a request that stinks we're like "Oh, please do, take him!"
The problem isn't so much legal, or technical, it's that US courts tend to be far more patriotic, in protecting US citizens and interests - they ignore the fact the treaty is stupidly unfair for the average joe who can get extradited at will, and protect American interests- they ignore the terms of the agreement.
The issue in the UK, and many European courts in general is that we're too honourable for our own good, our judges stick to the letter of the agreement, when the Americans don't. This can sometimes be a good thing- look at the Oink case for example, and the fact even this guy wasn't charged in the UK - because under British law, such linking isn't actually illegal, but in other cases like this, where adhering to the letter of the law means following a stupid extradition treaty, it's obviously terrible. I'd argue the fundamental problem is that the treaty makes it too easy to extradite from either side of the Atlantic, but that the US has fixed this by simply ignoring the exact lettering of the treaty when it suits.
One final point of course is that in the UK we're not stupid enough to waste time extraditing someone like Gary McKinnon or this guy in the first place, we could probably try the same, hence another reason why the extradition treaty looks so one way, is because the US wants to extradite people for more trivial things where we wouldn't bother precisely because we do think it's disproportionate. Again though, the fundamental problem here is that the treaty is too lax in general, not that it's inherently weighted in favour of one country or the other.
So effectively we're left two choices - pull out of the treaty or rewrite it putting a limit on the seriousness of the crimes (i.e. only murders, rapes, that sort of thing), or start being as lame as America, extraditing people for the silliest little things, like creating file sharing link sites, and then hold them to the treaty when they try and ignore it. I think pulling out is the best option regardless.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is that "technically" it's reciprocal, a judge examining the treaty recently acknowledged this.
Citation needed, I do believe.
The problem isn't so much legal, or technical, it's that US courts tend to be far more patriotic, in protecting US citizens and interests - they ignore the fact the treaty is stupidly unfair for the average joe who can get extradited at will, and protect American interests- they ignore the terms of the agreement.
If this has happened even once, it is sufficient grounds for the UK to pull out of the treaty. Again, a citation would be nice.
Re: (Score:3)
The argument seems oddly narrow, as it hinges solely on the equivalence of the concepts of "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" as justifications for an arrest.
No mention is made of the relevant provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, of Titles 3 and 8 of the same act in particular which claim for the US the right to prosecute for crimes committed outside US jurisdiction.
Courts breaking Law (Score:3)
US courts tend to be far more patriotic, in protecting US citizens and interests - ... - they ignore the terms of the agreement.
So in other words US courts are breaking US law. Hmmm... can you take a court to court? More seriously though I'd be concerned about this - yes this is a stupid treaty but if your legal system can decide which laws they want to enforce then your government has really been replaced by judges and the careful balance between the legislative, executive and judicial branches which your founding fathers set up is way out of alignment.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say it's a terrible treaty. Each of us is subject to quite enough laws in our own country. Enough that we can't know them all, we just have to do whatever feels right and hope that's what the law says. That's bad enough in itself. Far worse if you can be boxed up and shipped overseas to a country you've never been to before to stand trial in a legal system you know little about for doing something that was perfectly legal where you live.
I would think at a minimum the treaty should be limited to crimes c
Re: (Score:3)
The reciprocality is not the biggest issue here.
A UK citizen being prosecuted for failing to comply with another country's laws while in the UK is the issue.
As I suggested to my MP, next we'll have British citizens being extradited for insulting the King of Thailand or supporting Falun Gong.
The law needs clarifying, and that clarification has to limit the exposure of the British people to British law, not to every stupid fucking law every stupid fucking country on the planet decides to proclaim.
Re: (Score:3)
You would, but you'd be wrong to so hope. Things are what they are.
It works like this: from the point of view of the international community, the UK (as represented by its government and HM the Queen) has sovereign rights over its citizens. It has unilaterally (if partially) surrendered one of these rights (that of jurisdiction) to the US of A. It is the prerogative of the UK, as a sovereign nation, to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
you ARE right, business associates is a fitting and accurate term.
THERE IS MONEY TO BE MADE.
in lots of ways. follow it.
this isn't about revenge on someone killing a man's wife. this isn't about some large and weighty justice matter. this is about media wanting to stomp on anyone that threatens its model and its prepared to use ANY means at all, even crossing international lines.
any more proof of total corruption of both of our systems? I've seen (over the years) all I need to see. I'm convinced that ou
Re:Well. this will be a first... (Score:5, Informative)
There's a wider issue here because of the hugely lopsided extradition treaty that was signed by Blair and which has been lambasted by most human rights organisations. There has been no need to *prove* anything to get the extradition beyond the fact the USA justice wants him there. For some strange reason the same favour wasn't granted to us in our extradition of American citizens who still have their full legal protections. The same treaty has meant one man has been held without trial for more than 7 years despite having committed no offence in the UK...(although his views were abhorrent they weren't illegal, something the USA used to understand)
Not just lack of proof, lack of any crime at all (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like this is actually worse than a treaty merely being one-sided in the requirements for proof. This is about someone who committed acts in the UK that were not illegal in the UK (let us assume, given that his equipment was taken by British police in November 2010 but no criminal charges followed). His actions might have been illegal in the US if they had been committed in the US, but as far as I can tell, they were not and this all happened entirely in the UK. But the US is apparently trying (and currently succeeding) to get him extradited anyway.
Extradition is supposed to be about not letting a criminal flee to another jurisdiction to escape justice. It is not supposed to be about making someone in one country guilty of any offence they commit according to the law in any other country with which an extradition treaty exists.
Just to be clear, I am utterly lacking in sympathy for this guy. I don't for an instant believe he was either ignorant of copyright law or doing this purely out of the kindness of his heart, and if he was making a significant amount of money off the back of helping people to break the law then throw the whole damn book at him. But it should be our book if he did this in our country. The legal principle that anyone can be extradited from a country when their actions committed in that country were not against the law in that country is very, very dangerous.
Re: (Score:3)
All true. Just remember to take those arguments to UK politicians, since they are responsible for accepting this treaty. You can't blame the US for proposing a treaty that seems to favor it, and you can't blame the US for the UK signing onto it. In fact, I think the UK does get short-term value out of the one-sidedness of the treaty (political and legal convenience). Whether it's legally a good idea is another question.
Re: (Score:3)
I just had a thought. Can't someone bring a private prosecution against him, and as a result protect him from extradition due to double-jeopardy laws?
Obviously the CPS could step in, take over then stop the private prosecution, but they'd really struggle to justify a public-interest argument on that one.
I think I need to speak to a lawyer, I'm willing to put some cash into establishing a useful precedent.
Re:Well. this will be a first... (Score:4, Funny)
hugely lopsided extradition treaty that was signed by Blair
In Blair's defense, he REALLY wanted that Snausage treat.
Re:Except this isn't an extraditable offence. (Score:5, Informative)
That seems pretty sensible. The guy was making large sums of money by running a site that very clearly was designed for piracy. He wasn't some innocent middleman who was abused. He profited handsomely off piracy knowing full well copyright infringement was illegal, and is now being extradited for it.
I'm a Brit and think there are quite a few things wrong with the US/UK extradition treaties that are in place, but the judges ruling is easy to read and logically sound. What he did was an offence under UK law. It would not infringe his human rights to be tried abroad. So what's the big deal? My only concern with this is that the UK Govt didn't prosecute him itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Except this isn't an extraditable offence. (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope - same goes for about 20 other countries, and then an even lower standard applies for EU countries. The theory is that the US authorities need to have sufficient evidence back in the US to get their arrest warrant (i.e. satisfying probable cause) that asking them to prove the same in the UK is redundant.
It's kind of like when flying, and taking a connection, not having to go through security twice; if the second flight trusts the first flight, they can assume that you've already been sufficiently checked.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds more like some (Canadian?) environmental group unrelated to the asbestos purchaser was trying to block the sale by arguing that it shouldn't be legal for a Canadian company to export a product that's illegal to sell in Canada itself.
+1 Insightful (Score:3)
Now you know why many small countries are trying to build nukes. They need protection against a certain global abuser.
This is currently modded "Score:2, Troll", which looks to me like evidence that folks are modding Troll when they don't like what the poster has to say -- as the actual comment content is fully on the money in any broad global politics sense.
The simple truth of the matter is that the US is the world's biggest bully right now. Given the precarious nature of the US's position, what with oil dependency, a weak currency that depends on OPEC only accepting dollars even as many oil producers talk about accepting
His extradition has been granted (Score:5, Insightful)
Just within the last hour and is pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically this was just one step in the extradition process - the case now goes to the Home Secretary for a decision, then the whole thing can be appealed to the High Court. This case probably won't be over for months, if not years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The DPP Director of Public Prosecution authorized this. Granted your comment is quite valid and there was a Parliamentary debate over cutting ties with the UK USA extradition treaty signed up by Bush and Blair.
The last I heard CI5 arrested this chap and he is now in custody without charge.
Nonetheless he is still being held in detention against his will. I sincerely hope that clarifies some questions of some people and is enlightening.
Love
nsn
Re:His extradition has been granted (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Everyone Else: We're not in control! The car is driving itself. Seriously, save us! PLEASE!
Re:His extradition has been granted (Score:4, Funny)
They're just goddamned TV shows. (Score:5, Interesting)
Boycott. Stop watching, stop buying, stop feeding these asshole media publishers. If you must buy, buy used.
Re:They're just goddamned TV shows. (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycott. Stop watching, stop buying, stop feeding these asshole media publishers. If you must buy, buy used.
Actually, that's the right approach to take. You don't have the right to copyrighted stuff. What you do have the right to do is to not watch or listen. That's the proper approach. Stop watching the shows, stop listening to the music. Go find stuff that fits your idealism.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with that argument is that many of these media publishers are manipulating the political system to retain copyright to content that ought to be in the public domain.
So, I would modify the principled stance: think about what you think ought to be copyrighted and respect those copyrights. Respecting unjust copyrights may be legally prudent, but certainly isn't a principled or moral position.
Re:They're just goddamned TV shows. (Score:4, Insightful)
Says you.
AFAI am concerned anything older than a decade or so is fair game.
I don't legally have permission to share those things freely, but I don't consider it ethically wrong to do so. Quite the opposite, actually; if not for piracy there's a ton of stuff from as recently as the 90s that would be lost forever or hopelessly hard to find already.
With the law so broken as to be no useful guide, I pay when I feel like I ought to and I don't when I don't; I'm not sure what else one can be expected to do. You only live once, and I'm not going to cut myself off from our shared cultural works just because media companies have been allowed to gain too much power and to write absurd laws. I could follow the law to the letter and boycott all big-corporation-owned media made since 1917, but I'd be doing far more harm to myself than to the media companies.
Re: (Score:3)
The only way to fight is civil disobedience. I do not recognize the copyright extension as constitutional, and I do not follow it. "Life of the author" should not be a factor in any temporary monopoly, only a specific number of years for everyone. Anything over 28 years is fair game to me. This covers the original 14+14 years from 1790 without having to verify a renewal, and the updated 28 years from the first extension in 1831.
I try to spread the word as often as possible. Only if we continue to asser
Boycotting Comcast? Go back to dial-up (Score:3)
this is not a fight that big media can win.
Unless big media takes control of a public utility that is increasingly coming to be viewed as a necessity, such as the purchase of NBC by a cable Internet provider that's the only wired home broadband ISP in some areas that have no DSL coverage.
I'll bet he wishes he was a banker... (Score:5, Insightful)
who had just engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the pension plans of half of the country. He wouldn't be charged much less extradited. What a country!
Special Relationship? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Special Relationship? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first and most difficult step in ending an abusive relationship is realizing that you can just walk away.
Re:Special Relationship? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can they legally extradite him, when he didn't commit a crime IN the US? He's not even a US citizen and isn't subject to US law!
WTF happened to the concept of jurisdiction? Why should the US be able to enforce its laws in the UK? This sets a VERY bad precedent; what if country A has some really stupid law that country B doesn't, and someone in country B breaks it? Should they be extradited to country A?
What's next; extraditing people to China for speaking badly of the communist regime over there?
"WTF happened to the concept of jurisdiction?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"WTF happened to the concept of jurisdiction?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"WTF happened to the concept of jurisdiction?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Today I believe that both replies have merit and here you come making the same observations for the other side so I will give you the same reply:
(1) How do you what "real capitalism" is if it doesn't exist? For me it is only a theoretical construct that doesn't hold water in the real world.
(2) Why do you think what is happening today in the US (and the whole world actually) isn't the logical outcome of attempting to implement "real capitalism"? "Real capitalism" has had several powerful proponents for more than 2 centuries and often in government and here we are...
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism is when you have private ownership of capital (hence the name). It is completely orthogonal to democracy, and is only vaguely related to free markets.
Re:ehhhhh (Score:4)
Saying that 12 people owned the economy 100 years ago is just silly. The market is a wildly complex and dynamic creature made up of the interactions of all who particpate, basically the entire citizenry.
your proposition and assessment is too light hearted and devoid of reality. even it contrast what contemporaries of those times have been saying.
it was not a 'wildly complex and dynamic creature' as you so galvanize. it was basically owned by 12 people. people driveling in mud at the bottom, has not made a middle class.
The wealth gap was pretty stable
seeing that you have no knowledge of history. otherwise there wouldnt be an offensive and stupid statement like this regarding those times. the people who you are telling to have 'a stable wealth gap' was driveling in mud, and it was worse than the current 85% poor at this point in time.
http://www.ralphmag.org/FL/poverty-america.html [ralphmag.org]
stable it was. and it was despicable.
you come up as a BELIEVER in your speech. i dont discuss with believers. there is no end. you see things to your perspective and twist picture to your own desire - just like you have beautifully portrayed a horrible poverty as 'a stable wealth gap' (as if it was something good).
ill mark you as foe, in order to have a red dot when i see your posts, so i can refrain from discussing with you again - no hard feelings ; i have done too many discussions with 'believer' type people, be them religious, be they from the holy church of market economics. and i dont see any point in doing that anymore.
BR. audieu.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Because the U.K signed a very bad and very lopsided agreement with the U.S, The Extradition Act of 2003 witch implements the US-UK Extradition Treaty of the same years. It was controversial for exactly this, it allows the U.S extradite U.K citizens for infractions of U.S law even when that offense occurred outside the U.S with no ability for U.K to do the same to citizens. What's worse the standard of proof in extradition cases under this act is reasonable suspicion.
Re: (Score:3)
How can they legally extradite him, when he didn't commit a crime IN the US? ... WTF happened to the concept of jurisdiction? Why should the US be able to enforce its laws in the UK?
Jurisdiction has always been quite a flimsy issue; merely needing some sort of link between the alleged offence and the country. In this case the US are arguing that some of the TVShack users and advertisers are based in the US, and as they're sort co-conspirators/accessories to the crime, that brings it within the US's jurisdiction. As strange and counter-intuitive as it may seem, this sort of thing isn't all that rare; a good example being if someone in country A murders a person from country B in country
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Informative)
WTF happened to the concept of jurisdiction? Why should the US be able to enforce its laws in the UK? This sets a VERY bad precedent; what if country A has some really stupid law that country B doesn't, and someone in country B breaks it? Should they be extradited to country A?
In German law, you would be extradited to the USA if: 1. You did something that would be a crime according to German law. 2. The crime was committed in the USA, and according to German law a crime is committed at the place where it has an effect (like sending a letter bomb from Germany that explodes in New York would be a crime committed in the USA). 3. There must be enough evidence that according to a German prosecutor, it would go to court if it happened in Germany. Not enough evidence to convict, but enough to prosecute. 4. There must be a guarantee of a fair trial, and no cruel or unusual punishment. That means in case of murder, the court would have to guarantee that there is no death penalty. For small offences, the trauma of being extradited and having to stand trial in a foreign country could already be considered too much punishment.
There must also be a guarantee that you cannot be prosecuted for anything other than the things that you were extradited for. Which means police often delays asking for an extradition of you are suspected of having committed multiple crimes unless they have enough evidence for each crime.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
I really really like Russian extradition law. It's VERY simple:
"Russian citizens can not be extradited for any offences"
If a Russian citizen commits a crime in a foreign jurisdiction then it will be prosecuted in Russia. With some special provisions for evidence and witness testimonials.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the downside is that if some Russian does something illegal in Russia and flees, there are very many places where he can go and be immediately safe from (Russian) prosecution.
The Russian gov't, being authoritarian in nature, sees this as a small price to pay for the right to treat their own citizens and residents as they damn well please. Other governments, not so much.
I think extradition is good, personally, as long as the principle of reciprocity is observed and sovereignty is not disregarded.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Just heard this reported on BBC Radio 4 (Score:4, Interesting)
The item stated that in order for extradition to be considered, O'Dwyer had to have been accused of committing a crime that was illegal in both the UK and the USA. As far as I am aware, no crime was committed in the UK, which is why the criminal investigation was originally dropped.
Re:Just heard this reported on BBC Radio 4 (Score:4, Informative)
The item stated that in order for extradition to be considered, O'Dwyer had to have been accused of committing a crime that was illegal in both the UK and the USA. As far as I am aware, no crime was committed in the UK, which is why the criminal investigation was originally dropped.
This was one of the main challenges to the extradition (section 7 in the ruling, iirc) - the judge disagreed, and held that what he did probably was illegal in the UK. However, that may prove to be a good point to appeal on.
The real enemy of freedom is... the media? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its funny when you think about it. The media moguls pushing these laws are the very people who's vast empires are supposed to be helping protect us from tyranny via the free press.
It was fun while it lasted I guess. At this point anyone running for office who would fix this mess is either demonized by the media, or just outright ignored.
Do something about this (Score:5, Informative)
To all my fellow UK /.ers, you can write to the Home Secretary about this matter, explaining politely why this is wrong:
Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Home Secretary
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone number: 020 7035 4848
He broke the law IN THE UK! (Score:4, Informative)
According to the very well written judgement [judiciary.gov.uk] he can only be extradited if there is a proportional offence in the UK.
I think this stinks, but it seems perfectly legal.
Re:He broke the law IN THE UK! (Score:4, Insightful)
Courts of law and judges in particular are not algorithms that can be beaten by finding an edge case to exploit. I see this fallacy on Slashdot time and time again. They consider the intent of the law as well as the wording. If you read the ruling you will see that this was taken into account - the judge considered the intent of Parliament when writing the law. He also considered the meaning of the phrase "make available" in the context of a different part of the law and concluded that O'Dwyer was doing so when common sense ("plain reading") is applied.
And the Pirate Party says... (Score:5, Informative)
By supporting the baseless US extradition case against Richard O'Dwyer today at Westminster Magistrates Court the judge Judge Quentin Purdy has failed to inject the much needed shot of rationality into the insanity of the UK-US extradition arrangements we had all hoped for. The Sheffield student is accused of infringing copyright by setting up the popular UK-based website TV Shack.
TV shack provided a catalogue of links to other sites, with no illegal material available from it at any time. As the server was based in the UK, Richard's lawyer has pointed out that there is simply no valid reason to send a young British citizen to face a court in the US.
[...]
This outcome is a failure on the part of our British justice system to act in a sensible and reasonable way. This case is the perfect example of what enforcing copyright is; excessive, overblown and aimed at easy targets innocent or not whilst ignoring the human.
So, this is what protecting your copyright has come to mean. Accepting unacceptable human collateral like Richard O'Dwyer."
http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/ofabu/tv_shack_creators_extradition_hearing_is/
Trial by peers? (Score:5, Insightful)
BBC Audio interview (Score:4, Interesting)
An earlier interview with him on BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16546471 [bbc.co.uk]
O Canada! (Score:4, Informative)
Not to brag about sanity, but up here in Canada we just had a court decision in the last year about the legality of suing someone for linking something.
The short version is that its not.
It might be going to appeal, but currently sanity is holding out against the powers of stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is this even a crime in the USA? (Score:5, Informative)
It's only happened once in the UK before as well, and then (TV-Links), the case was dismissed. Despite the web being around for some time now, it seems that the issue of linking is only just reaching courts, and unsurprisingly, there will be a few odd rulings until it settles down and precedent is established.
In this case, the US was arguing that providing the website (even merely linking to stuff) was "communicating [copyrighted stuff] to the public", and was "in the course of a business" due to the money being made from adverts (contrary to Section 107 (2A) [legislation.gov.uk] of the CDPA). The counter-argument was that (as in the TV-Links case) his actions were protected by the 'mere conduit' defence (established by Article 12 of the Electronic Commerce Directive [europa.eu]) which protects ISPs, website hosts etc. from the actions of their users. However, in this ruling, the judge seems to have found that because O'Dwyr (the defendant) was in control of the site, and those adding the links had to be "vetted". Imho (as a mere observer, not a lawyer) that's a very narrow interpretation of the Directive, which might be grounds for a successful appeal.
If he does appeal, we might get a "definitive" ruling on the legality of linking, and the scope of the EC Directive defences, which could be very useful (or terrifying, if they go the other way), so in some ways this is a good thing.
Of course, if he gets to the US, he then may face a completely different trial under US law, where he will be able to argue facts, not just points of law...
Re: (Score:3)
s. 107 (2A) A person commits an offence who - makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work
Is that even English?? What the hell is it supposed to mean? The document has three different meanings of the word "article" being used all over the place, and it doesn't even look like it defines it properly... Does it mean you shouldn't make a website? A proxy? A book? A p2p program? A freaking magazine article? What?
Re:Is this even a crime in the USA? (Score:4, Informative)
That's s107 (2), which isn't in play here, but yes, "article" in that context hasn't been defined , which is why prosecutors in the UK have been able to use s107(1)(e) to go after non-commercial file-sharers before (despite s107(2A)(b) being added specifically for that purpose), claiming that an .mp3 file etc. is an "article". I don't have access to all my legalish resources at the moment, but I imagine that "article" in this context merely means "thing" - but I don't think s107(2) has ever been used against software specifically.
However, the CDPA is rather badly-written in some places and a real mess - much of it being written on behalf of the legacy publishers in the 80s, so it doesn't really know about computer stuff, and the rest has been cobbled together following subsequent lobbying and EU legislation. The UK really could do with a new Copyright Act, but hopefully we're currently at the high point in the scope of copyright, so it might be worth struggling on for a few more years until copyright law is a bit more reasonable.
and (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
and how are you going to prevent psychological disorders of commanding entire countries' power and system and being in poverty will cause ?
you are basically mandating them to be gurus, or saints. find such people. its hard.
Google Search is not vetted (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The GREAT britain, now a BITCH to u.s. corporations. you think this is an uncalled for and aggressive post ? because the keywords were capitalized ? ............ does that change the street-speak summary of this situation ?
Britain hasn't been great for a long time now. And lest you think I'm gloating over them, I'm not. I'm mourning them, and I realize we're headed in the same direction.
Re: (Score:3)
What about european countries seeking extradition of US citizens for carrying guns in public?
A similar thing happened a few years ago, when some neo nazi sent nazi propaganda material from the USA to Germany. Since this was a crime according to German law, German authorities asked for him to be extradited, which was completely correct. Since it was not a crime according to US law, US authorities refused to extradite him, which was also completely correct. Thankfully the fucker went to a meeting of fellow neonazis in Denmark, was extradited to Germany in accordance with EU law, and spent some time i