Slashdot Mirror
Share Links, Become Extradited To the US
castrox writes with an in-depth followup to a story we discussed in June:
"Sharing links online, particularly links to copyrighted material, may render you extradited to the United States of America. 'In May, American law enforcement officials opened up yet another front in this war by seeking the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer. The 23-year-old British college student is currently working on his BS in interactive media and animation. Until last year, he ran a "link site" that helped users find free movies and TV shows, many of them infringing. American officials want to try him on charges of criminal copyright infringement and conspiracy.' The case is unique because the site, which the accused Englishman ran, was not located in the US in any way. Does this set a new precedent of things to come? The agency responsible for the extradition request is Immigrations and Customs Enforcement."
If they ever demand extradition for sharing goatse links, I'd be on death row.
Trolling is a art,
ICE, ICE, Baby... They're almost as bad as that white guy pretending to be a rapper...
More tax dollars tossed to the trash to protect the interests of a few companies. And the guy was not even posting infringing content. This is getting so out of hand. Way to go, America!
First Cisco trying it from Canada, now the MPAA through Britain. An important thing to note through the article is that copyright laws exist in both countries - but that so far, it seems in Britain that link-sharing alone is not as damning as it is in the US. Mainly, it looks like TVShack was much more commercialized than Hotfile, and that's always something that results in a bigger hammer coming down the line. An important thing to note as well is the previous experience British judges have had with copyright litigation - I remember ACS Law and Crossley being torn into, as seen here (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/amounts-to-blackmail-inside-a-p2p-settlement-letter-factory.ars) Really, I don't think he's getting extradited. Britain is markedly hostile to US-style copyright infringement proceedings, and I doubt they failed to figure out where Crossley got his tactics from. Unless if they get someone to play rubber stamp and not examine the case, I'd lay my money on O'Dwyer staying right where he is.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
How does this work? if he broke the law in the UK, he should be tried in the UK. Under what grounds would extradition to the US make sense? he'd have to have committed a crime in US territory, and if the site wasn't there, and he wasn't there, then the answer to this seems pretty clear...
If you want to try him for a crime allegedly committed in the UK, try him in the UK, not the US. And if the UK laws don't allow you to try him in the UK because what he did wasn't a crime there, then too bad for you!
It all depends on who you can pay off to make a big stink. I remember the Penet remailer incident and Scientology. It was located in Finland but because they were posting Scientology material they soon had their doors busted down. If you're in the U.S. just pay off your congressman (which is an INSANE return on investment), have him to make an issue of it. Problem solved.
Scream it from the mountain tops since it can't even be wispered of in court.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
ICE's contention is that the site's use of an address within the .net TLD, administered by Verisign and within US jurisdiction, was the grounds on which their jurisdiction was established.
That seems an unnervingly broad criterion for establishing jurisdiction(if the the state tourism board of $PICTURESQE_TROPICAL_COUNTRY buys some ads from ClearChannel, urging people to book vacations, does ICE acquire jurisdiction over them?); but the immediate practical punchline seems to be to Stay. The. Fuck. Away. from American registrars if doing something that pisses off the feds.
I can see that using an American registrar would leave you open to having your domain name(which, effectively, is a 'property' that exists in the US as much as it is anything else) being seized; but leaving you open to extradition seems insane.
Fuck yea!
Is that our government has gone completely off the rails of common sense. But, if you lived here, you'd already know that.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Google doesn't map some cryptically named zip on rapidshare to the title of the movie it contains. These sites make it very easy to find illegal material and are never used for legit content.
What is the difference between what he did and what google does?
There's a difference here, be fair - Google, for one, doesn't run an index primarily of infringing content. Google's also big enough to be able to fight back directly with big money lawyers as well. And lastly, Google -WAS- sued under this logic once before, in the Viacom-Youtube incident, where Viacom held that Youtube was, essentially, engaging in mass infringement. Actually, on thinking of it, the Viacom-Youtube incident should provide an interesting angle to this - does anyone know if he received, by chance, DMCA takedown requests? That was what threw out Viacom's suit against Google - that they had complied with the DMCA and thus were not liable. I don't see any mention of them here, but I don't know if that means "We didn't bother sending DMCA notifications to a known British National" or "We sent them and they got ignored so nobody cared enough to report them".
Does that mean that if the guy is not extradited and if he ever steps on U.S. soil he is risking being arrested?
I'm Not Antisocial, I'm Just Not User Friendly
Extra judiciary domain seizures, extradition of foreign citizens for crimes not committed in the US... ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is either corrupt or completely out of control. They must be reigned in.
In the mean time, it's great that they have the situation at the Mexican border under control, gives them more time to be innovative in the war against piracy (keep going guys, you're so close to winning that one).
The fact that our law enforcement agencies are turning into the Hollywood SS is abominable. These corporate whoremongers have no ethics, no decency, and no shame. Once upon a time people such as these were pilloried for their crimes against the public good. I find it appalling that not only are our own lawmakers bending over for these cunts, but those of foreign countries are as well. Make no mistake, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of true liberty as the multinational corporations siphon more and more power and influence away from the governments of the world. And the saddest part of the whole thing is the people, you know, where the power actually lies, are just lying down and taking it. Rise up, you lazy, apathetic fuckers. Our entire world is being sold out from underneath us while you all just sit there getting fat and flipping channels. Sooner or later you're going to click on something and an hour later jackbooted, for-hire thugs are going to haul you off to copyright concentration camp. Hollywood has become the National Socialist Party and they see everyone who uses the internet as a dirty Jew.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
It is increasingly clear that America is becoming a Police State. Freedoms for which it was once the envy of the world are now being trampled by government enforcers at the behest of corporate interests. When George W. Bush was in office, critics were able to lay these excesses at his feet, but it is now clear that the rot is deeper than that. So what do you do when the World's Policeman is on the take?
Google actively searches for the links. I don't know what the innocent did.
The active search comparing Video IDs came up after the lawsuit was filed - I assume this is what you mean by an active search. Either way, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that doing this afterwards wouldn't have removed their liability for previous actions, so I think you're safe without some sort of active search going on. Pretty sure that just responding to DMCA takedown requests counted as enough.
Makes perfect sense, make it so that half the population is lawyers and the other half is RIAA/MPAA/patent trolls. They can sell and consume each others services
Nah it's more he was telling people where there was a free bike parked outside.
It was the users that used the bolt cutters. As you say, piracy is piracy... but it's the people with the bolt cutters that commit the crime.
Perhaps an extradition on the premise of "accessory with the assistance of the intention to commit violations against intellectual property rights?"
Never is a strong word. Sites like this also host anime (at the acceptance of the authors) and other programs that would not be available otherwise.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
May $DEITY have mercy on your karma. /. dances with the best sort of correct, technically correct. There will always be some flaw, no matter how minor, that someone will find in any analogy that will "justify" their view.
What is the difference between what he did and what google does?
Google, their subsidiaries like YouTube and others of their ilk engage in the generally agreed upon practice of responding to "takedown notices." I'll bet you a ball of cash that this guy received numerous takedown notices, which he no doubt ignored. Now he's in hot water. If he'd responded to the first takedown notice life would have just gone on for everybody.
Directly besides the "do you plan to overthrow the US government" question in the visa application there will be a "did you take part in file sharing" question.
Drawing lines in the sand isn't helping. They are ALL criminally culpable, Democrat and Republican. Getting us to argue amongst ourselves is just one of the ways they distract us from the real issue at hand, the fact that they are working together to fuck us all.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
What takedown notices are legally required to be followed in the UK? Do they have a DMCA with the same provisions as the American one? Remember this was not a US site, was not on US soil, and the person running it was not a US citizen, and not on US soil.
The only REAL difference is that Google has money and lawyers. That's why the **AAs don't go after them.
In case you didn't realise DCMA takedown notices are irrelevant outside USA and it doesn't matter if thousands were received or not
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
I call upon all nations which have extradition treaties with the US, to start requests for extraditing high-profile US citizens for alleged internet crimes. Let's see how long until the US discovers that these kind of policies are not in their interest. At all. I asked this before, how can the US claim international jurisdiction over IP violations? As the Dutch say, arrogance and pride come usually precede a hard fall. The Roman empire all over, it's time to learn Chinese and forget that the USD ever existed.
You will bow down before us, world! No matter that it takes an eternity!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The article used the correct term, infringement. Piracy is a term that has been co-opted to try to make the act seem worse than it is by equating it to murder and theft on the high seas instead of what it truly is, the unauthorized copying of someone else's published works, an act properly known as copyright infringement.
They aren't "dancing around it", they are one of the very few places actually using the correct term. The only one saying something "obviously false" is you by equating copyright infringement with theft (a completely different act) and criticizing the correct use of the term while suggesting one that is meant more to inflame emotions than to correct identify the act.
Note, I'm not taking a position on what is "right" or "wrong" in relation to copyright, only that the original article used the correct term, without comparing it to something completely unrelated.
He wasn't just running a "link site," he was actively profiting from providing links to material - which no doubt puts him into the criminal copyright violation realm. When his site was seized, he reopened under a new name and registrar.
Since he used a US registrar that provided a way to argue he is subject to US laws. You can disagree with that, but that looks like what has happened.
He didn't help himself by sticking a finger in ICE's eye by reopening under a new name. Sometimes the smart thing to do is go to ground and hope your oo small to be worth the trouble to prosecute.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
We keep reading about how crazed the USA has become with its DMCA, now the Homeland Security taking down domains, and ICE strongarming in areas where it would seem it should have no jurisdiction or business.
The reason is that it's very convenient for the government to have extremely powerful accusatory tactics and means of getting to and punishing people. You keep complaining, asking why RIAA/MPAA has so much power, but it's simply because it's convenient for the gov't for this seemingly private entity to exercise such power.
Under the guise of anything, the gov't can search your homes without a warrant, can pull over and fingerprint you/iris scan you, can confiscate your electronic equipment, etc, etc... without due process.
All these organizations and laws (DMCA, PROTECT IP) are simply a tool, a back-door way into your homes and private lives.
Once you understand that, you'll also understand why such organizations have such tremendous power. It's one and the same - they work in a symbiotic relationship with the gov't, which is working toward complete control.
He's being accused of being an Englishman? Seems like that should be easily verifiable.
I believe it's been measured that in times of economic struggle, people tend to engage in paid entertainment activities to a greater extent, from all slices of life.
Regarding the GP, I've recently rubbed elbows with people who Make Things Happen(tm), and while I'm not going to don any tinfoil hats over it, it's spookily applicable when all things are considered.
Not links to infringing content.
For all the Brits reading this, you should write to your MP at http://www.writetothem.com/ we need to make sure that this is brought to their attention, and that they understand that we will not accept this ridiculous extradition attempt
"Sharing links online, particularly links to copyrighted material,"
Everything is copyrighted! Well, nearly everything. With the exception of project Gutenberg and a few other sites that mostly go out of their way to find public domain material, everything else, i.e. >99.99% of content that exists on the internet, is copyrighted. Content that is not copyrighted is a negligible level of noise, small enough to be ignored for most practical purposes.
By extension, all links on the internet link to copyrighted material.
Oh, you want to make a distinction between material which is hosted with an appropriate license, and content which is not? How do you propose to do that? And given that the hoster/distributor of content can change the content behind any external link at any time, and for any subset of visitors of the hosters choosing (not the linkers choosing), which the linker may not be aware of, may I point out that What. The. Fuck.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
About $5M per year in lobbying expenditures.
if his link farm wasn't to entertainment media, but rather to expensive software developed in the US
With a few exceptions, expensive software is subject to competition from close substitutes distributed as free software. Entertainment is the best known exception.
Hollywood has become the National Socialist Party
I think you need to look up the definition of Socialism
So I guess Rudolf Jung, who suggested the name National Socialist German Workers' Party, also needed to look up the definition of socialism.
(When you fight the Jews, you fight God, and God wins. It's the law.)
And the US has the taxpayer dollars to fund the court costs/jail time?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Fuck you!
Yours truly,
The rest of the World.
Several BILLION dollars and access to high priced, highly effective lawyers, and over 500 Washington officials with their hands out for "campaign donations", a.k.a bribes.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
In case you didn't realise DCMA takedown notices are irrelevant outside USA
What takedown notices are legally required to be followed in the UK?
That wasn't the question. The question was (to paraphrase) "Why did he get dinged and the likes of Google didn't (don't)."
The answer is that Google and their ilk respond to takedown notices. You can argue the legality of it in various jurisdictions until the cows come home, but that's the simple answer. If he'd done what Google does he wouldn't have an issue today.
If someone in the UK can be brought to the US for violating an US law in the UK, then I suggest that all cities pass a law stating that the maximum speed limit on all public roads in their state be set at 30 MPH. That way, for instance, the city of Dallas can ticket all highway drivers in Ft. Worth for violating the law. PROFIT!!
"We are the United States of America. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile."
And England for being complicit, right? Right? (Assuming extradition does happen.)
The lobying is still irrelevant in this case however, anyone from 13 year old timmy running a webserver in his basement, to google, most likely won't get destroyed if they act on DMCA takedown notices within a prompt manner. Now the whole extraditing nonsense etc... is garbage, but googles immunity isn't just from throwing money around, or at least the money thrown around from google isn't just covering their own asses, what google secures is a law that anyone can follow to protect themselves.
Yes, technically, it isn't hosting content.
The pedantic technical aspects don't matter. The site took third party content and embedded it within the site. He had a website that existed for the sole purpose of serving up media to customers where he knew, or should have known, that doing so was in breach of copyright. It's ridiculous how the same people that criticise the law for being insane and pedantic come up with even more insane theories about how pedantic the law should be.
And aside from that, it's completely irrelevant! This isn't about what he did or didn't do. Ho could have had a site dedicated to churning out pirate copies of DVDs for all I care. The point is that he did so in Britain. US law has no jurisdiction over him.
They can "seek" extradition all they like... doesn't mean the UK will grant it.
Nah it's more he was telling people where there was a free bike parked outside.
...and selling them the bolt cutters.
Seriously? You think piracy implies murder and theft to a typical modern day person?
Pirates are seen as heroic, romantic figures. Jack Sparrow and the Dread Pirate Roberts. Even amongst the villains, we get the impressive Captain Hook and Blackbeard!
And any attempt to associate video piracy and piracy on the high seas is a joke. I've literally seen it presented as such.
Not sure about all that, but ICE is definitely shaping up to be a puppet for the RIAA / MPAA and operates with little to no over-site.
The most revealing info I've seen is the responses from ICE and the DOJ to a pointed letter by Sen. Wyden sent the Obama administration here. (This letter was covered back in feb on slashdot here).
you in africa and hungry? BREAK COPYRIGHT, SHOW ADVERTS THAT BENEFIT YOU. and get a free ticket to a meal. do the same if you want out of tibet, somalia, whatever.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Worst that can happen: Britain says no, what can the United States do then? Britain has to agree for the extradition, yes? If this guy gets extradited it's not only on the American government that's responsible
No, the worst that could happen is that he fights extradition in a British court and loses, with the judgement rendered in such a way that it drastically lowers the bar for future cases.
(There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
Teens scoff at a lot of laws because they fully understand nobody will do anything to them... and they are right. Imagine America trying to extradite boatloads of 15 year-olds from around the world.
Arise teens of the world and throw off our chains, you have nothing to lose.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
In most western music there are in fact 12 notes.
If you are in either of those states, reelect those guys. They get it, and need to stay in office.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The treaty is very controversial here in the UK: many people feel that the US is using the mere process of extradition as a form of punishment in itself. Sadly, there is a public perception here that the US legal system is vindictive and heavily biased.
Living here, and reading about the SCOTUS's "money talks" case, among many other travesties, leads me to think -- the public in the UK might just be right.
Sadly,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
And then leaving it up to them to decide what to do with the bolt cutters. But he didn't sell them anything, anyway. He just told them where to go.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It wasn't just links! It was embedded video!
The net result is that he was actively providing people with access to copyrighted media that he didn't have the rights to and was profiting from this act.
Saying he was just showing people where to go is highly misleading. He was taking people there and providing the tools.
It wasn't just links! It was embedded video!
But they were hosted on another server, correct? Not that different (aside from the fact that you can view the videos without leaving his website).
profiting from this act.
He charged people to access the videos, or he made money through advertisements? If it's the latter, then I would hardly say he was making money directly because of the copyrighted material. He was making money because people visited his website (their intentions are irrelevant to me).
He was taking people there and providing the tools.
He didn't provide them with anything other than links (or embedded videos). What tools? Why does providing tools even matter (in your opinion)?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
He was making money because people visited his website (their intentions are irrelevant to me).
I presume it was advertising. But he was using material he knew was illegal in order to bring visitors. Hardly sounds like he's exactly an innocent victim here. Perhaps what he did is just about within the law but that depends on the specifics of how the law is written and interpreted. The point is, he's far from an innocent here. He was knowingly profiting as a fairly direct result of copyright infringement and assumed that some clever pedantic arguing would get him off the hook. What tools?
In this case an embedded video player. Sure it's a fairly simple piece of software since it's just an embedded video player but I don't see how the complexity makes substantial difference.
Why does providing tools even matter (in your opinion)?
It means he's actively taking part in the infringing activities.
But he was using material he knew was illegal in order to bring visitors.
Your point was (I believe) that he was directly making money off of copyrighted material. He's making money off of advertisements. I don't see this as any worse than any other website making money off of advertisements. I couldn't care less about his visitors' intentions.
In this case an embedded video player. Sure it's a fairly simple piece of software since it's just an embedded video player but I don't see how the complexity makes substantial difference.
Couldn't the same be said of links, then?
It means he's actively taking part in the infringing activities.
No, it doesn't. If you give someone a gun, and then they use it to rob a bank, the fact that you gave them a gun does not mean that you actively participated in the robbery (even if you knew that they were going to). Now, that would probably be illegal to do (I assume), but you still didn't actively participate in the robbery. What they do with the tools is ultimately up to them.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If everyone avoided posting links to copyrighted material, the only ones left would be to sites such as the Gutenberg Project.