Slashdot Mirror


British Student Faces Extradition To US Over Copyright

An anonymous reader writes "A 23-year-old British computer student faces possible extradition to the U.S. for linking to copyrighted content on his website. The student, Richard O'Dwyer, was accused of copyright infringement after setting up the website TV Shack, which had links to thousands of films and tv shows, but did not directly host them."

14 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. Jurisdiction by Robadob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do they have any jurisdiction over this? It wasn't even hosted in the US.

    1. Re:Jurisdiction by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US doesn't give two shits about jurisdiction, they care about sticking it to the kid.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do they have any jurisdiction over this? It wasn't even hosted in the US.

      Well, since both countries are signatories to the Berne Convention ... technically, by treaty the US is legally entitled to ask for the extradition.

      Of course, if you were living in a country which said that linking didn't actually constitute copyright infringement, then the response would be "go away". If your country rules that linking is the same as infringement ... well, then you get extradited. So, depending on precedent in the UK, that's what will likely happen.

      I think this pretty much demonstrates how copyright has become the big bogeyman that circumvents any sanity in law any more. It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

    3. Re:Jurisdiction by Nick+Ives · · Score: 5, Informative

      Back when Tony Blair was in power he signed an extradition treaty with the US which means that if a DA files charges against someone, they can be extradited from the UK. Our Parliament ratified the treaty without inserting a reciprocal clause in the legislation making it dependant on your congress honouring the treaty.

      Obviously your congress decided that having US citizens extradited just because a prosecutor in the UK fancied it them was mental, so they didn't ratify that clause. That leaves us with the current imbalance where your criminal justice system can essentially pull anyone out of the UK for any reason.

      --
      Nick
    4. Re:Jurisdiction by Score+Whore · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is no "three strikes" law at the federal level in the US. There are multiple "three strikes" state level laws. But there are no state level copyright laws. So your post is kind of bs.

    5. Re:Jurisdiction by rs79 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US controls every domain name on the planet. Don't kid yourselves.

      For a "siezed" website, it seems to be pretty up: http://tvshack.bz/movies/M (beware of popups)

      I had no idea this site existed. Hello Streisand effect!

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    6. Re:Jurisdiction by chrb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obviously your congress decided that having US citizens extradited just because a prosecutor in the UK fancied it them was mental, so they didn't ratify that clause.

      No. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in 2006 - see Extradition Act 2003 (US ratification 2006).

    7. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, its still one sided, you see it works like this,

      UK citizen wanted by an American prosecutor, can be extradited under mere suspicion

      US citizen wanted by a British prosecutor, can only be extradited when evidence is shown that a crime has been committed.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

      Sounds one sided to me..

  2. Re:Pointless by milkmage · · Score: 5, Informative

    READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
    ICE is the twunt... yes that ICE.

    The website was seized by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. O'Dywer was arrested on May 23, brought to Wandsworth prison and then released on a £3,000 bail paid by his aunt.

    I assume the US wants him extradited so he can face prosecution HERE.

  3. Importing criminals by siga · · Score: 3, Informative

    I guess US does not have enough citizens in jails , so they need to import now . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

  4. Re:Let me get this right by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Informative

    When did the rules change

    On the 17th of August, 2000, when 2600 was barred from linking to DeCSS under the terms of the DMCA.

    Given the peculiar characteristics of computer programs for circumventing encryption and other access control measures, the DMCA as applied to posting and linking here does not contravene the First Amendment.

    (Emphasis mine.)

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  5. Re:Pointless by paulo.casanova · · Score: 5, Informative

    C'mon, the US never really cared about jurisdiction in the first place... Dmitry Sklyarov anyone?

  6. Re:How many links is the limit for infringement? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Informative

    More specifically, Tommy Chong was jailed for selling bongs to Pennsylvania cops who repeatedly tried to purchase them even though Chong Glass refused each time because it is illegal in Pennsylvania. After placing a large order under a false name for pickup (where it was legal), the cops refused to pick up the material and had them ship it to get payment.

    All of this circus was done for political reasons by Mary Beth Buchanan with a wink and a nod from John Ashcroft.

  7. Re:Pointless by lothos · · Score: 4, Informative

    TVShack wasn't just seized once, it was seized TWICE.

    tvshack.net was the original domain, which switched to tvshack.cc after it was seized. They then put up a video of the song "Fuck the police" on the homepage. They were seized a second time.

    http://www.domaincensorship.com/2010/11/tvshack-cc-seized-again/