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."
So this guy is being extradited because he has a website which links to copyrighted content only? When did the rules change, because somebody should be talking to Google & Microsoft....
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
I got access to all copyrighted content via youtube, google and facebook, I wonder why thoses company(CEO) are not in jail, if this "crime" can send you in jail for 5 years.
Being the greatest, best country God has ever given man kind, US law is God's law, which recognizes no jurisdiction.
This is how American Exceptionalists really think.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I like using rlslog.net to conveniently find torrents. They host no copyrighted content whatsoever, only link to sites which link to torrents which in a sense link to a swarm of people who have parts of the file of interest.
I imagine that, just following random links on the internet from nearly any given site, I could eventually get to the site I mentioned above. How many links is enough degrees of separation? Surely if liability is introduced simply by linking to a website, you are liable for anything sites you link to also link to. I wonder how many government sites link to Google as their site search provider? Google can get you anywhere, so surely the government would in those cases be liable for linking to Google which links to torrent sites. And that's why this idea is completely absurd.
And how the hell is what this kid did worthy of extradition, or even a felony in the US? Our copyright policy is so ridiculous.
Getting authorities to act sanely entails that they understand a *tiny* bit about how these systems work. They don't. By the admission of many legislators they are getting all their information from lobbyists... which means almost all their information has bias problems.
We've come a long way from the "creme rising to the top" and such in government. It's purely face-men listening totally to corporate interests. And anyone with true unbiased knowledge are simply "the other" now and their input is completely thrown away.
He could get a judge that isn't on the take and actually cares about the facts and the best outcome is that it becomes a VERY EXPENSIVE fiasco... what is one more very expensive fiasco, eh?
the Berne convention is an international treaty
Signed in the 19th century when copyright infringement was a civil matter, not a criminal one.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The US wants him extradited so they can prosecute him for alleged crimes in the UK?
I didn't know the US jurisdiction stretched that far over their borders.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I keep trying to explain this, especially in relation to Julian Assange.
You don't get a free pass to commit crimes against a nation's people or corporations or government just because you're not a citizen and not in that country when you do it.
So you think the editors of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten should be extradited to an Arab country so that they can be beheaded for posting cartoons of Muhammad?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
Soviet prisoner #1: So how long is your sentence?
Soviet prisoner #2: 10 years.
Soviet prisoner #1: What did you do?
Soviet prisoner #2: Nothing.
Soviet prisoner #1: You liar! "Nothing" gets you 20 years under the PATRIOT ACT.
"Crimes" against a nation's people? For *linking* to copyrighted content!?
Since (according to the Berne convention) copyrights are automatic, that means pretty much every website on the Internet is copyrighted. Which means every hyperlink to a page that you don't own is potential copyright infringement. I think it would be safe to say that under this definition, almost every website on the planet is now guilty of a crime.
Thats ok,
I called the Saudi Arabian crime stoppers and let them know that your mother, sisters, and daughters have all consistently failed to wear veils, or burqas. They also insist upon driving. I suspect they shall be extradited post haste.
Do you see why you fail yet? Because some of us have been trying to explain this to your stupid thick headed ass for quite a while now.
Do you know why it will never happen? Because Saudi Arabian laws don't apply here. Now lets follow that through logically... Do you think American laws apply elsewhere?
Oh BTW I'm an American, and veteran. My opinion? Julian Assuange should be freed, Bradley Manning should be freed, and the charges against this college kid should be dropped. The way my government is currently acting at times makes me physically sick.
The UK signed up to an Interestingly one-sided extradition treaty which is best summed up as follows:
US: We want on of your citizens for x crimes
UK: Do you have the kind of evidence we would require in order to press charges?
US: No
UK: He'll be on the 2:30 to O'Hare
-- Using the preview button since 2005
I think they understand how these systems work just fine. The problem is that 'we, the people' like to think that the technical workings of things offers ways around the intent of laws in addition to getting around the letter of them.
e.g. if I get 1,000 individuals to upload 1,000 movies to 1,000 individual sites which don't have any particular public presence, then those 1,000 individuals are technically the ones breaking the laws.
The people behind those 1,000 sites may also be breaking the law (depending on (nation) state and internationally applicable conventions, they may be in direct violation of a copyright law or at least in violation of a copyright 'safe harbor' clause a la the DMCA).
Any of the, say, 1,000,000 who directly download from those locations - by having received one or more of those locations - may also be breaking the law (depending on the (nation) state in question).
But finding those 1,000 individuals takes a lot of time, and costs a fair amount of money, and there's no guarantee that even one of them is found.
Shutting down 1,000 sites takes a lot of time and costs a fair amount of money, and there's no guarantee that even one of them is actually shut down.
Finding and suing the 1,000,000 downloaders takes even more time, costs even more money, and there's no guarantee that even one of them is actually found/sued.
Not to mention the great public backlash against actions taken against downloaders; not so much when it's against uploaders, oddly enough.
But now imagine that those 1,000,000 downloaders got those 1,000 addresses from 1 site. One single site. Now they've got an easy target. Now they've got the site that, while not responsible for the uploads, not hosting them, and not exactly putting a gun to people's head and saying THOU SHALT DOWNLOADETH, can certainly be successfully argued to be facilitating copyright infringement in a significant way.
The facilitating argument is usually what's used in these cases, at least around Europe. Not sure how that is in the U.S., but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same were to apply there.
Not to mention the fact that he didn't violate any copyright. Links do not make copies.
That's a terrible solution. I don't want a militarized border a few miles South of me. I'd rather we remove the economic incentive to smuggle drugs into the US by making them legal to produce and distribute here in a safe, affordable, and regulated manner. If they are going to be sold and used anyway (and they are, you can't stop it), it might as well be done safely and in the open where it can be monitored and regulated--and taxed appropriately.
Anything else is jingoistic madness, usually with a dash of racism.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org