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."

Comments

Jurisdiction

[Robadob]

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

Re:Jurisdiction

[bigstrat2003]

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

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Nick Ives]

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.

Re:Jurisdiction

[MickyTheIdiot]

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?

Re:Jurisdiction

[MickyTheIdiot]

I'm an American and I find this situation as well as almost every governmental figure from the last 8 years pathetic. Even the ones that were mostly good, like my Senator Richard Lugar, have been shit since the Newt Gingrich congress when everything officially went apeshit with partisan hate (ending in the most unnecessary impeachment trial in history). But even worse than the politicians are the general public who keep electing these idiot facemen time after time. We're in major trouble, kids!

Re:Jurisdiction

[Score Whore]

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.

Re:Jurisdiction

[rs79]

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!

Re:Jurisdiction

[chrb]

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).

Re:Jurisdiction

[Dunbal]

the Berne convention is an international treaty

Signed in the 19th century when copyright infringement was a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Jurisdiction

[Nick Ives]

Right, but that doesn't redress the imbalance around the fact that the treaty allows for the USA to remove people from the UK for things actions that occur in the UK but are illegal under US law.

To highlight how crazy this is, there's a case of a somone involved in a bribery scandal being extradited even though the alleged crimes occurred entirely between the UK and Nigeria, just because he worked for a firm owned by Haliburton!

Of course it's right that such crimes should be investigated, but things like that are illegal in the UK too. If our criminal justice system doesn't see fit to prosecute, why pull them out to the USA to do it?

Having said that, our police and prosecutors are clearly and obviously corrupt at the highest levels (evidenced by the fact that our Tory government employed a former newspaper editor from News International who has been implicated in a phone hacking scandal, and his former boss even accidentally admitted to parliament that her paper regularly bribes police officers for information) so maybe you're doing us a favour. This is about the principal though!

Re:Jurisdiction

[Dahamma]

"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.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Jurisdiction

[QuasiSteve]

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.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

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..

Re:Jurisdiction

[lennier]

The US controls domains with other country TLDs?

They use Aircraft Carrier Deployment Protocol for that.

Let me get this right

[MonsterTrimble]

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....

Re:Let me get this right

[Bogtha]

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.)

YouTube, Google, Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:YouTube, Google, Facebook

[91degrees]

Well, youtube, Google and Facebook do not exist for the sole purpose of activities that infringe copyright. They also take measures to ensure that the infringing material is blocked or that the copyright holders are recompensed for it.

TV shack exists purely to allow people access to copyright information without the copyright holder's permission.

Re:Pointless

[milkmage]

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.

How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Rijnzael]

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.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Sponge Bath]

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.

Re:How many links is the limit for infringement?

[Em Adespoton]

I think what these arguments are missing, which is what is often missing, is the area of intent. For example, Slashdot links to all sorts of "illegal" material -- but the site is a news site, not a site that is dedicated to indexing copyright infringed works.

What this guy could have done was make his site a discussion site with TV schedules etc. that just happened to also have an area showing examples of where this content was available online. If these links were not the primary goal of the site, but only a result of other user's activity on the site (and not ad supported), he likely wouldn't be under the extradition cloud.

US courts don't really care that much about what crimes you facilitate; they care about what crimes you premeditatively facilitate. They also care if someone cries foul and appears to have a case, yet you ignore them and don't take reasonable steps to make things better.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[Grishnakh]

Ever read "1984"? Remember how the war department was the "Ministry of Peace", the propaganda department was the "Ministry of Truth", etc.? The USA's claim "land of the free" is the same. It's just propaganda, and it never was true. At least back in the old days, it was only the slaves and Indians who weren't free, but these days it's everyone who isn't super-rich and politically connected.

Re:Extradite me :)

[MickyTheIdiot]

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.0/testing/linux-3.0-rc3.tar.bz2

Linux is copyrighted!!!

Importing criminals

[siga]

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

Government=Cream?

[AliasMarlowe]

We've come a long way from the "creme rising to the top" and such in government.

Are you familiar with the septic tank paradigm for government (and politics in general)?
The biggest shits always rise to the top...

Re:Government=Cream?

[Sponge Bath]

Creme is always rich and thick.

Re:Pointless

[mwvdlee]

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.

Re:Pointless

[zill]

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.

Re:Pointless

[paulo.casanova]

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

OMFG, what BS

[lexsird]

This is a blaring indictment of how corporations run things. This copyright crap is just about corporate strings controlling our government. Where is the rage?

I can remember back in the day when the Internet first started how when it was first used for making money how angry the users were against it. It was suppose to be a landscape of pure thought, ideas to be shared for the edification of us all. Bzzzt. That didn't work out. Now its been raped by corporations, if some kid puts up a website that they think they can squeeze a dime out of they burn him. What is sickening is how our pathetic lapdog piece of shit politicians hand over the keys of power to them. We then have a massive industry of enforcement and punishment. We have so many fucking people in jail now its fucking insane.

Lets dissect all these fucking laws of ours that put people in jail to protect corporate interests. Next we need to consider that our retarded crooked cunt of a Supreme Court has decided in their fucked in the head reasoning that corporations are now "people" and have rights. Holy fucking shit people! How far does a cock have to jam up our asses before we realize how raped we are? How come they aren't paying taxes like a normal person then? Oh, that is right, they buy politicians to give us a tax code that stacks taller than a person.

The one big lesson that we have collectively forgotten like a bunch of retards is this: When it happens to the least of us, it happens to all of us. When we let these fuckers in charge get away with fucking ONE OF US, then ALL of our liberties are in jeopardy. If you don't consider ANY violation of ANYONE'S liberties a violation of your OWN liberty, then you just fuck off and let it happen. They come for you eventually too, and there is nobody left to stand and fight them with you. Besides you don't deserve anyone helping you because you were a cowardly cunt who let it happen to others.

I hope the British people fucking riot over this, but they will not. They are a bunch of lemming pussies too. Who am I to talk? We are proving to be the biggest bunch of retarded pussies in history. I shit you all not, if we don't get a grasp of our government and rip it away from corporations, we will be viewed by future historians as infinitely worse than the fucktards in the era of Germany that let the Nazis rise to power.

Why get so excited over some punk kid getting treated like a high crimes criminal? Sweet Jesus, people, this could be YOU. This could be ME! I don't have the means to fight this kind of shit? Do you? How far will they keep taking control over us? Oh fuck it, what can I expect of the Facebook generation? Stop the fucking planet, I want off.

Re:Pointless

[MysteriousPreacher]

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

Re:Pointless

[lothos]

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/

Re:Pointless

[seeker_1us]

Not to mention the fact that he didn't violate any copyright. Links do not make copies.

Re:Land of the free - paradox?

[sqrt(2)]

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.

Re:Pointless

[rtb61]

This one sounds like the US has no real interest at all in the case, they are just trying to lower the bar for extradition cases, with the aim of targeting other people. This guy is just seems to be a victim of a political game, with the intention of making it easier to extradite other people currently in the UK for the crime of handling intellectual property that the US does not want them to.

So will the British government and the British people just role over and become another third world country when it comes to providing the citizens justice against politically motivated chargers by the US government.