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.
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?
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.
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