Slashdot Mirror
US Government Seeks Extradition of UK Student For File-Sharing
Gimble writes "The BBC reports that UK student Richard O'Dwyer has lost a legal battle to block his extradition to the U.S., where he faces copyright infringement charges for running a file sharing site (ruling). O'Dwyer operated the site 'TV-Shack' from 2007 until 2010, which didn't offer any files itself, but posted links to streams and files hosted elsewhere. O'Dwyer was first arrested in June last year by British police acting on information from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The domestic investigation was subsequently dropped, but Mr. O'Dwyer was re-arrested in May on an extradition warrant to face charges in America."
A natural person extradited to the US, through the indirect urging and lobbying of the "media" industry. 'tis sad, 'tis sad... what have we become ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Just within the last hour and is pathetic.
All cows eat grass!
Can someone be arrested in the USA for just posting links to copyrighted material? I've never heard of it.
Doesn't Google and other search engines also list those links if you just do the right search? I don't pirate anything, but stories like this make me want to never pay for a song/movie/tv show ever again.
Boycott. Stop watching, stop buying, stop feeding these asshole media publishers. If you must buy, buy used.
who had just engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the pension plans of half of the country. He wouldn't be charged much less extradited. What a country!
Next up: Extradition because you violated a website's policies.
that will tieup the courts and jury trials.
Good luck getting a jury to under stand the policies and in court it will take a lot of time to read out a 50 page policies any ways.
ICE the new Peacekeepers of the planet.
With the same type of public perception and welcome.
More like an abusive one, the American government clearly thinks that we are weak and treat us as such. Maybe they're right. *sigh*
In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
How can they legally extradite him, when he didn't commit a crime IN the US? He's not even a US citizen and isn't subject to US law!
WTF happened to the concept of jurisdiction? Why should the US be able to enforce its laws in the UK? This sets a VERY bad precedent; what if country A has some really stupid law that country B doesn't, and someone in country B breaks it? Should they be extradited to country A?
What's next; extraditing people to China for speaking badly of the communist regime over there?
And the USA never signed their half of the bargain.
A non-US citizen who took actions completely outside the boundaries of the U.S. "or any territory subject to their jurisdiction" is subject to U.S. law? Does that mean U.S. citizens are subject to Chinese law, even when all actions take place on U.S. soil?
I'm curious to know how O'Dwyer can be tried under US law when he isn't in the US or a US citizen. Are all UK citizens now living under US law, to be extradited at any time?
capitalism happened. power of money transcends borders.
Read radical news here
The item stated that in order for extradition to be considered, O'Dwyer had to have been accused of committing a crime that was illegal in both the UK and the USA. As far as I am aware, no crime was committed in the UK, which is why the criminal investigation was originally dropped.
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
With NDAA updated they could have a room for him in Guantanamo. Could be very interesting if this happens, no more subterfuges and showing the world who really governs USA.
How does this differ in any way from a generic search engine response linking to those same files? Why is it that a single individual is targeted?
Because he doesn't have the resources to defend himself properly? Perhaps simply looking for a weak target to set more precedence? I consider this a prime example indeed of how low we can stoop as a nation. Granted I don't agree with copyright infringement yet the actual damages should be considered as opposed to the over hyped theoretical maximum damages which are simply bogus. We should really get our priorities straight and be focusing more on the larger issues of direct paid file sharing individuals and black or gray market distributors. The media/content companies coming up with a new, more current, business model would go a long way to solving the problem as well of course!
This is a British Citizen,
- Who has been charged with no offence in the UK,
- Who commited the acts for which he's being extradited entirely within the UK
Yet our utterly one sided and totally inappropriate extradition treaty with the USA allows him to be summarily extradited to face charges in a foreign juristiction?
Irregardless of the normal opinion around here on Copyright, surely the principle involved in insane to anyone giving any thought to it that the laws of a foreign country can be violated to the point of extradition - without leaving your house.
The blame admittedly lies at the feet of the previous Labour government for effectively unilaterally making us subject to the laws of a foreign coutry - without recourse.
Don't worry, there comming after you next.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
He was living where? and committed a crime in which country?
I'd love to see China start insisting U.S or U.K citizens need to be extradited to because they are 'defaming the party' as is against the law in China.
Sorry guys this is just WRONG. It is one thing if you don't like a web site , but that site is certainly governed under the jurisdiction of the country the sites owner lives in.
If the server is in your country , by all means shut it down , but if the server and the owner are not in your country they aren't covered by your laws.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I know a lot of people here are anti-world-government. But isn't this just one of a growing list of examples of the need for a world government of some sort? I suspect a federalist, democratic world state that has some global jurisdiction would be better than the growing injustice of US business hegemony. Two groups that seem to have workable ideas are the World Federalists and the Baha'is (which, because it is religious is almost certainly going to be dismissed out of hand by lots here, but hopefully we can learn from a _working_ global system).
Anyway, this type of American dominance frightens me. I'm a Canadian citizen where certain types of file sharing are allowed... we pay a tax for this in fact. If the Americans can prosecute me for something that I am doing legally in my own country, then we have a major failure of global governance.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
What it means is that the governments of the US and UK are working together to justify more spending and more power. They are simply business associates. Not very romantic is it?
The answer to everything government does, since the dawn of organized coercion, is to follow the money.
It is long past time we started locking people up who commit crimes in other countries. No more of this "It's legal here" loophole crap.
Finally Change I Can Believe In! I'll probably get modded down for this. So what? You opponents of this are all racist anyway. After all, that's the only reason anyone COULD be opposed to this.
oh come on ....
Read radical news here
A lot of people purposely violated Thailands lèse majesté laws on the internet because they thought it was funny. We'll see if they're still laughing while they're on their way to Bangkok in shackles. Anyone who ever posted a less-than-modest photo will soon find themselves on the way to Iran.
If it's illegal anywhere, not it's illegal everywhere.
Its funny when you think about it. The media moguls pushing these laws are the very people who's vast empires are supposed to be helping protect us from tyranny via the free press.
It was fun while it lasted I guess. At this point anyone running for office who would fix this mess is either demonized by the media, or just outright ignored.
how are you going to protect that world government from being run by the wealthy and corporate interests, just like current usa is being run ?
Read radical news here
To all my fellow UK /.ers, you can write to the Home Secretary about this matter, explaining politely why this is wrong:
Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Home Secretary
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone number: 020 7035 4848
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
It looks like this is actually worse than a treaty merely being one-sided in the requirements for proof. This is about someone who committed acts in the UK that were not illegal in the UK (let us assume, given that his equipment was taken by British police in November 2010 but no criminal charges followed). His actions might have been illegal in the US if they had been committed in the US, but as far as I can tell, they were not and this all happened entirely in the UK. But the US is apparently trying (and currently succeeding) to get him extradited anyway.
Extradition is supposed to be about not letting a criminal flee to another jurisdiction to escape justice. It is not supposed to be about making someone in one country guilty of any offence they commit according to the law in any other country with which an extradition treaty exists.
Just to be clear, I am utterly lacking in sympathy for this guy. I don't for an instant believe he was either ignorant of copyright law or doing this purely out of the kindness of his heart, and if he was making a significant amount of money off the back of helping people to break the law then throw the whole damn book at him. But it should be our book if he did this in our country. The legal principle that anyone can be extradited from a country when their actions committed in that country were not against the law in that country is very, very dangerous.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
What if arab countries start seeking extradition of US citizens for women who don't cover their faces in public, or because they didn't do certain things (like traveling) with their husband's written permission?
What about european countries seeking extradition of US citizens for carrying guns in public?
I'm sure there are _many_ things which are done every day by US citizens but are illegal in other countries, perhaps some of which do have extradition treaties!
PD: I realize most US citizens think this is ridiculous, too. I'm not confronting them, just making the same statement with switched roles.
According to the very well written judgement he can only be extradited if there is a proportional offence in the UK.
I think this stinks, but it seems perfectly legal.
If a square is really a rhombus, why aren't all triangles purple?
If you are going to be accused of piracy, hope that you live in one of these non-extradition treaty countries: Bhutan Botswana Brunei Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad China Comoros Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Gabon Guinea Guinea Bissau Indonesia Iran Ivory Coast Jordan Kuwait Laos Lebanon Libya Madagascar Mali Maldives Mauritania Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Nepal Niger Oman Qatar Russia Rwanda Samoa Sao Tome e Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Somalia Sudan Syria Togo Tunisia Uganda United Arab Emirates Vanuatu Vietnam Yemen Yemen South Zaire
But we can get criminals from America to the UK right? Err No.
Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
"Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in this act. It has been claimed to be one-sided[1] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK"
Which retarded judges / laywers decided this was a good idea?
We stopped being Great when we let politics fall off the radar and the 1/3 of the population that actually take notice went along with all the party politics hype. If more people were interested and we actually had the best person for the job (rather than political party's with leaders and whips) then we may be in a much better position and would still be great.
Google doesn't choose which links appear in Google Search. The provider of an unvetted service such as Google Search or YouTube can keep its safe harbor status by following the OCILLA takedown procedure (17 USC 512) or foreign counterparts. As I understand this comment, TV-Shack may have been too vetted to qualify for the OCILLA safe harbor.
Aside from the RIAA/MPAA perspective, US government resources spent money on this. How much money has the US invested in this legal pursuit?
The GREAT britain, now a BITCH to u.s. corporations. you think this is an uncalled for and aggressive post ? because the keywords were capitalized ? ............ does that change the street-speak summary of this situation ?
Britain hasn't been great for a long time now. And lest you think I'm gloating over them, I'm not. I'm mourning them, and I realize we're headed in the same direction.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
How do the operators of a site like Dropbox avoid the same fate? I'm sure people have shared MP3s and video clips that they didn't have the permission to share.
As someone who lives in the UK let me sum up our attitude to the USA with a video from the Exploited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReFqf4kixVw
It's worth keeping in mind that this decision was made in a Magistrates' Court. That is basically the lowest court in England: as the name suggests, most of the decisions are reached by magistrates, who are lay people offering their services rather than legally trained judges, and do not involve a jury. The penalties that can be handed down in such courts are also typically very limited compared to a Crown Court (to which more serious cases can be referred if the magistrates consider it necessary for the interests of justice because they cannot impose a sufficient penalty themselves).
It sounds like this wasn't a typical case for such a court, but the implication is still that this is only the first step down a long road. I imagine there are several rounds of appeals to go through before the guy in question is in any danger of actually leaving British soil. Those will involve a lot more people who are legally trained and who can spot the obvious (you would think) implication of allowing someone to be extradited for allegedly breaking a US law on British soil but not, apparently, a British one.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
While 'copyright infringement' for profit is abhorrent, and those who are found guilty should be reasonably punished, this guy was found guilty for linking to files that he wasn't even hosting.
Here's where I have problem with this.
His domain was TV-Shack.cc. The .cc is a TLD for an Australian Territory, and also used for Northern Cyprus, however the .cc TLD is maintained by a VeriSign subsidiary. This little tidbit is where I think some weight is being thrown around for jurisdictional authority, since VeriSign is an American company. This, possibly gives more creedence to why extradition is reasonable in the courts eyes. Putting aside the various rulings on file linking amongst different countries, where some find it free speech, and others find it illegal, this is at most a civil matter, not criminal.
In the context of Government resources, and usefulness of the D.O.J. , they're really showing their hand here to whom their Corporate masters are; the entertainment industry. Yes, we've known this for several years now, but to extradite a foreign national for hosting a site and file linking, completely outside of US jurisdiction (perceived), really throws any realm of reasonable justice on this matter completely out the window.
What I find sad, and highly hypocritical here, is that the US wouldn't allow extradition of a US citizen to a foreign nation for this very same scenario. US Prosecution? Possibly. Extradition? For file linking, equivalent to the case at hand? Not on your life.
What the fuck is wrong with these poeple?????????????
this is not a fight that big media can win.
Unless big media takes control of a public utility that is increasingly coming to be viewed as a necessity, such as the purchase of NBC by a cable Internet provider that's the only wired home broadband ISP in some areas that have no DSL coverage.
Loz Kaye — Pirate Party UK Leader:
By supporting the baseless US extradition case against Richard O'Dwyer today at Westminster Magistrates Court the judge Judge Quentin Purdy has failed to inject the much needed shot of rationality into the insanity of the UK-US extradition arrangements we had all hoped for. The Sheffield student is accused of infringing copyright by setting up the popular UK-based website TV Shack.
TV shack provided a catalogue of links to other sites, with no illegal material available from it at any time. As the server was based in the UK, Richard's lawyer has pointed out that there is simply no valid reason to send a young British citizen to face a court in the US.
[...]
This outcome is a failure on the part of our British justice system to act in a sensible and reasonable way. This case is the perfect example of what enforcing copyright is; excessive, overblown and aimed at easy targets innocent or not whilst ignoring the human.
So, this is what protecting your copyright has come to mean. Accepting unacceptable human collateral like Richard O'Dwyer."
http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/ofabu/tv_shack_creators_extradition_hearing_is/
So what does this mean? One no longer has to worry about being tried twice for the same "crime", rather, one has to worry about it happening to you as many times as there are countries in the world who enforce copyrights?
Never mind that some countries have even more ridiculous laws than the US and Europe --- in CÃte d'Ivoire, for example, the term is 30 years longer than the already ridiculous pma + 70 years, and they don't even follow the rule of the shorter term, so it protects works even after they become public domain in the country of origin.
Never mind that many kind of artistic works, like movies, now include contributions from many different countries, so that even if the law was limited to being extradited to a country which actually contributed to the creative work, I wouldn't be surprised if movie studios would start actively "padding" their creative workforce with people from exotic countries with amenable copyright laws or legal systems --- kind of like what happens even within the US with regards to certain locations like Texas.
http://web.mit.edu/press/1995/lamacchia-0111.html
The UK (and all of Europe) is arguably a "protectorate" of the US. But the arrangement exists by choice, not by force; the UK and Europe are welcome to end the relationship anytime they want. Furthermore, the US may end it unilaterally, because it is getting quite expensive.
The UK is not, however, a colony or a "colonial protectorate", since it is still an independent nation that can make its own laws and choose its own alliances (at least as far as the US is concerned; whether the UK is independent from the EU is a trickier question).
Yes, and the democratically elected government of the UK chose to enter into such an agreement and to maintain it. Presumably, the US offered them some benefits in return. For example, the UK government doesn't have to deal with some controversial legal issues (e.g., copyright, terrorism, etc.) themselves now, they can just send off the offenders to the US and let US courts take the heat for it. That may not be a benefit to the UK as a whole, but it is probably a benefit to the officials they elected.
The judge addressed this too. It's not valid to assume "I was raided by the police, and not charged, therefore what I am doing is legal". That's not how the law works.
Buy from non-asshole media publishers, artists. They always blame a drop in sales as piracy. This way when some non-asshole publisher or artist makes big sales, they can no longer point to piracy as the main culprit.
How can he have a trial by his peers? All his peers are in Britain...
Let's be in the hypothetical mind of someone who allegedly downloads and uses copyright software 'illegally'. Music, video, you name it. Let's call him Smith.
Maybe this person buys things that they consider good and worth it, but on occasion will download some software for personal use, maybe a game or two here and there, but when something really good comes along, they buy it. Buy a good game, or a CD from an artist they support. Maybe a movie looks really good so they actually want to see it in theater.
Now, the US posts a big flaming sign with a giant middle finger saying, 'Screw you, for downloading anything or sharing, we'll get you'.
Let's assume most humans are similar in how they react to messages like this. So Smith decided, screw you back. I'm not buying anything and hope your company squanders, and there happens to be thousands of people like Smith. Will Smith hold on to this forever? He's just an average person. Probably not, in a few months, he'll see something he wants, and he'll buy it again.
In the mean time though, the thousands, or hundreds of thousands of Smiths, are going to increase their piracy for a few months in protests, to send a message back to entities such as the RIAA. Their profits will drop temporairly as punishment for their actions. Did they send a message that makes people buy more? Nope.
Will it increase profits? Not really. Will a few people buy in fear? Sure. Many more will pirate. Also you've just advertised to the average user that they can look up online for links to files to get 'free' content.
Good job. We're angstier than you think.
All true. Just remember to take those arguments to UK politicians, since they are responsible for accepting this treaty. You can't blame the US for proposing a treaty that seems to favor it, and you can't blame the US for the UK signing onto it. In fact, I think the UK does get short-term value out of the one-sidedness of the treaty (political and legal convenience). Whether it's legally a good idea is another question.
Hear hear. Can you imagine how quickly we would all be extradited to Yemen for going to our local pub and having a drink here in England???
It doesn't set any sort of legal ruling, of course, but no judge can overrule common sense. If there is a case against him under the law in England, let them bring that case under the laws of England to an English court. If there is not, *$#! off.
They had a chance to bring that case, and they declined to do so. It doesn't take a genius to draw the obvious inference from that, and if that inference is wrong, the authorities can still bring the case -- to an English court, under English law.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Well, I'll try to keep my end of the conversation a little bit more civil that yours.. 1.) You say that my statement, "we haven't been capitalist for the better part of the last century," is, as you so eloquently put it, "shit." You then offer the fact that 10-12 people essentially owned the economy of US as proof that we have been capitalist. This is in fact proof to the contrary, here's why: The only monopolies that can exist in a purely capitalistic free market economy are ones in which the competitor has been able to produce goods and availability to the consumer better than all others. This earned monopoly exists only so long as the supplier is capable of maintaining this level of quality. New competitors will be able to enter the marketplace so long as their is no barrier to entry. There are often legitimate barriers to entry such as prohibitive start up costs and existing market penetration by competitors; however, these will typically not exclude all competitors desiring to enter the market when an undeserved monopoly exists (as previously stated, earned means they are still delivering the goods better than anyone else could). Now, illegitimate barriers to entry happens several different ways. First, when there is a collusion between government and corporation to essentially elevate them above the non-competitive barriers of the free market: subsidies, tax breaks, etc.. I'll give you an example, corn production is essential an artificial, government sponsored monopoly in the US. The US government subsidizes corn growth to encourage supply to outpace demand. As a result, like 90% of the items around you some kind of corn product in them (a bit of hyperbole, but whatever), Now, because of this artificially lowered price on the market, sugar is expensive by comparison (not to mention that foreign sources of sugar are overly tariffed because of lobbying by the sugar industry, another artificial barrier of entry for goods that are produced at a lower cost in the market, etc..) Now, the effects of this simple manipulation by the ULTIMATE source of monopoly, the government, the effects spiral out of control. What I mean by this is you see a pervasive entry of corn products into the market such as high fructose corn syrup replacing sugar in everything. Hell, because of NAFTA american suppliers sell the corn to mexico. Mexican farmers can't compete with the artificially low american prices because their government doesn't subsidize their corn product, so a million Mexican farmers are out of business, with a significant portion now wanting to cross into america illegally to try and make a living off of markets hiring them to try and evade minimum wage and other government imposed regulations on the free market. Seriously, government intervention, while I can understand peoples' desire to have it, represent the little dutch boy with his finger in the dam, you try to plug a hole and then 15 unintended consequences start spilling out everywhere. 2. You then go on to make the comment, "excuse me buddy, but take your 'real capitalism', and shove it up your ass. at least, now entire country is owned through proxy corporations, shareholderships in big funds, therefore giving the ILLUSION of being a participatory, pluralist economy. back 100 years ago, the 12 owners were directly owning and running everything. really. shove it up in your ass." Actually, 100 years ago we were still pretty much capitalist and free market.. about 1913-1914 is when the federal reserve got introduced and we started to practice the printing of money and fractional reserve banking - quite antithetical to the ideals of the free market and economic value (see Keynesian economics, I'm sure you are a big supporter). The 12 people you are referring to emerged sometime in this time period, along with Roosevelt and the new deal, heavy heavy industry regulation... Now I'm not going to argue against what Roosevelt did, he had an incredibly difficult situation to deal with, and trying to put forth a solid argument on how the free market would handle
An earlier interview with him on BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16546471
Everyone knows that people who click are on average dumber than people who type. Your server, if it has a GUI, (even if it launches an emulated shell window into which you CAN type) well it is bound to be for stupid people.
there are NO double jeopardy laws in the UK, there used to be, but like our "right to silence" they got dropped when Blair was in
right now they (gov/police) can keep prosecuting until they get a conviction (see the Stephen Lawrence case)
I remember that site, I believe I found it through a google search. That link from google points to a site that is violating copyrights by posting links to elsewhere. Google must therefore be guilty of copyright infringement too. Cmon put it all out there. I wanna see them go after google with tthis half baked nonsense.
A Brit posted a sign on a wall in Russia that told a French tourist the address of a place in Jamaica where you can buy weed, and he got extradited to the US.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
and so is the rest of the world.
about the law that was passed in the US making US law apply everywhere on the planet. It matters not if what you have done wrong is actually not illegal in the place where you do this 'bad' thing. US laws say that if what you did is a crime in the US then the US can come and get you.
In this case, he'll probably be extradited, tried with negligble defence and sent to federal lockup for 122 years.
I'd really like the US to go after every male driver in France who stops by the side of the road and has a pee. They are clearle all sexual perverts under US law. Oh silly me, the French would give a big 'up yours' to the US if they did.
lets keep it concise :
- you said u.s. hasnt been capitalist for over a century.
that implies, u.s. was capitalist, a century ago. based on the proposition.
and so we look at what was there 100 years ago (actually 120), and see that entire country being owned by 12 people. not even 'monopolies'. these people directly own these aspects of economy, in person.
and none of what you speak of - ie the intricate concepts like 'barriers to entry', 'demand', 'supply' etc does not mean shit, since these people OWN the economic activity. they can kill you in the market in any way they want, or buy you out, or squeeze you out. and come up as the hero for doing that - and which was what they did, in actuality.
and no, noone 'voted with their vallet'. that is the ultimate end of capitalism - eventually one group gets bigger than everyone else and owns everything. there is no choice in anything. NO - there is no 'make believe' in this - there is no 'invisible hand' somehow 'making intelligent choices' through citizenry and whatnot. that citizenry made their choice in 19th century, and you ended up with rockefeller et al. identically, the same citizenry is making their choices, and elected w. bush 2 times. along with those who brought acta, sopa, pipa, popa, schmogga et al.
therefore, all you are giving me is assumptions and make believe, saying 'this will happen if that happens'. what im giving to you, is what HAPPENED.
12 people owned entire economy of u.s. when it was, supposedly 'capitalist' as you have proposed in your statement.
and yes, the illusion of a participatory economy and choice, is better than there being no illusion. at least, for the masses in your country. for me, they are both the same.
but, that does not justify the stupidity of proposing to go back to 12 people owning the economy, based on the HOPE and BELIEF that 'things will just work out, "because"'.
Read radical news here
As I understand it, here was a site that had reliable links to sites hosting copyrighted material. Links to websites on a plate... for the authorities to shut down! So helping the authorities find the illegal content. What have I missed?
US courts tend to be far more patriotic, in protecting US citizens and interests - ... - they ignore the terms of the agreement.
So in other words US courts are breaking US law. Hmmm... can you take a court to court? More seriously though I'd be concerned about this - yes this is a stupid treaty but if your legal system can decide which laws they want to enforce then your government has really been replaced by judges and the careful balance between the legislative, executive and judicial branches which your founding fathers set up is way out of alignment.
The new global government is here? Have all the Democracies, Republics, and Kingdoms been dismissed? Is there a song to hail the new multimedia owned corporations as overlords? I mean, whos ass do I kiss? Oh wait. I'm not a Brittish judge. Fuck those people.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Congress has little authority to stop this. It's the Whitehouse which has authority over the Federal agencies and can initiate or end investigations. This is all in Obama's lap.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Now you know why many small countries are trying to build nukes. They need protection against a certain global abuser.
This is currently modded "Score:2, Troll", which looks to me like evidence that folks are modding Troll when they don't like what the poster has to say -- as the actual comment content is fully on the money in any broad global politics sense.
The simple truth of the matter is that the US is the world's biggest bully right now. Given the precarious nature of the US's position, what with oil dependency, a weak currency that depends on OPEC only accepting dollars even as many oil producers talk about accepting different currencies, and the rising strengths of the BRICS nations, among other changing issues, the US has been stepping up its worldwide saber-rattling and bombing runs. Less-powerful nations who are not aligned with the US view the US as a threat, probably correctly, particularly those nations that do not have nukes and who do have things the US wants. In Iran's case, it's clearly oil; in North Korea's case, it's probably more the old real estate dictum of location, location, location.
Mods, don't use the Troll mod to disagree with someone -- post a rebuttal instead. The Troll mod is intended for folks actually trolling -- riling others up with intentionally misleading and -- this is important -- bogus posts. That fellow who used to post controversial chiropractic quackery? That was a troll. TheDarkMaster posting a controversial, but arguably quite correct, analysis of global political realities? That is not a troll.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
That's illegal in Saudi Arabia. Apparently it no longer matters where the crime was committed, nor is ignorance of any foreign countries laws a defence, so get her criminal ass extradited and in jail over there right away!
Of course, if he gets to the US, he then may face a completely different trial under US law, where he will be able to argue facts, not just points of law...
Oh, dear -- you sound confused. When the RIAA can claim billions in damages from piracy, even as profits rise and studies show that music downloaders are likely to buy more music than people who don't download, I think it's been clearly established that US court cases don't have a lot to do with these "facts" that you mention, at least when it comes to the media conglomerates.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I've been wondering lately how many SLASHDOTTERS are in the same boat as me.
I use to buy all my Series and Movies and DVD's and loaded it onto my media centre. Recently new DVD's started seeing the market that made it more difficult to copy so I just simply lost interest in buying the legal media.
It was so much easier to get it from friends.
How many other people are in the same boat ?
The second question if the media industry now receives so much protection will they be held liable for their actions ?
I just sent comment to Obama to let him know the bad international signals this sends and the too strong grip that the media has on the justice department.
Let him know what you think.
If the Action of the UK citizen affects a US entity (person or corporation), I can see how the US could claim jurisdiction. What if the guy 'hacked' into a US Entities computers and later sold his ill-gotten gains for profit? Should he be extradited then? The crime was committed on a computer in the US even though the alleged criminal performed the act remotely from the UK.
Your last reply was much more conducive to a rational discussion, thank you. I'll keep this reply short, as its the last one I'll make on this thread.
Saying that 12 people owned the economy 100 years ago is just silly. The market is a wildly complex and dynamic creature made up of the interactions of all who particpate, basically the entire citizenry. I will agree that there was power concentration, but this will happen in any situation. Take communism in Russia for example, where essentially power accumulated into a very small political ruling class (sound familiar?). The difference with pure capitalism is that there is actually a means for the power concentration to change. If any of those 12 people you mention had made a continual effort to crowd out all competition it would eventually depleat their resources to the point where effective competition would be possible, or it would bankrupt them; note, I am not disagreeing with temporary (even if years long) concentrations of power, just saying pure capitalism offers the means for change through the dynamics of the market.
The intracicies of what I previously mentioned with barriers of entry etc.. are the most important part of the discussion, they illustrate the complexities of the market and the fact that no one power concentration could hope to be maintained indefinitely without government assistance, of which I gave several pretty damn good examples.
I don't suggest there is an invisible hand making intelligent decisions through the citizenry. I am merely saying that a pure free market prevents any one power base from exercising total control indefinitely, like you see by countless examples throughout history. This is not make believe, this happens then this happens, its demonstrable. A purely simple and humurous analogy (not necessarily completely accurate): A lion pride may have effective domination of a certain market, but you get enough buffalos together and they can drive them out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ1Z3QGAmx4&feature=fvsr
In closing, the capitalist and free market American government gave the world the largest middle class ever seen in history. The wealth gap was pretty stable for like 200 years up until the beginning of the 20th century or so; so while I'm not expert enough to comment on 12 people owning the economy, I am suspect of the statement. We have seen the wealth gap increase dramatically since the early 1970s, as it really did since the beginning of the 20th century, but much more so now, and this is a direct result of the poor non-capitlistic, non-free market principles America has been following for the last century.
What is next, Iran asking for the extradition of people for blasphemy ?
It is a bad idea to expand laws to other countries through treaties if these countries have a different culture.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Why on Earth is a UK resident subject to US laws? The US should stick to dictating over it's own subjugated residents and leave the world alone.
I just had a thought. Can't someone bring a private prosecution against him, and as a result protect him from extradition due to double-jeopardy laws?
Obviously the CPS could step in, take over then stop the private prosecution, but they'd really struggle to justify a public-interest argument on that one.
I think I need to speak to a lawyer, I'm willing to put some cash into establishing a useful precedent.
Saying that 12 people owned the economy 100 years ago is just silly. The market is a wildly complex and dynamic creature made up of the interactions of all who particpate, basically the entire citizenry.
your proposition and assessment is too light hearted and devoid of reality. even it contrast what contemporaries of those times have been saying.
it was not a 'wildly complex and dynamic creature' as you so galvanize. it was basically owned by 12 people. people driveling in mud at the bottom, has not made a middle class.
The wealth gap was pretty stable
seeing that you have no knowledge of history. otherwise there wouldnt be an offensive and stupid statement like this regarding those times. the people who you are telling to have 'a stable wealth gap' was driveling in mud, and it was worse than the current 85% poor at this point in time.
http://www.ralphmag.org/FL/poverty-america.html
stable it was. and it was despicable.
you come up as a BELIEVER in your speech. i dont discuss with believers. there is no end. you see things to your perspective and twist picture to your own desire - just like you have beautifully portrayed a horrible poverty as 'a stable wealth gap' (as if it was something good).
ill mark you as foe, in order to have a red dot when i see your posts, so i can refrain from discussing with you again - no hard feelings ; i have done too many discussions with 'believer' type people, be them religious, be they from the holy church of market economics. and i dont see any point in doing that anymore.
BR. audieu.
Read radical news here
That doesn't stop him arguing the facts, it just means the court won't listen. Which in some ways is where the crux of these extradition cases (O'Dwyr, McKinnon, even the Assange one to a degree) - there are no issues with getting a "fair trial" or humane treatment in the other country *in theory*, we just don't trust them in practice.
Heh! I don't have any easy solutions for that. I suspect that it might be possible for such a government to be chartered such that:
1. Campaigning of any sort is not allowed for elected members.
2. Elected members are not members of political parties nor members of special interest groups nor executives of large organizations nor major shareholders of such.
3. Elected members are not "representatives" but rather people who are free to vote their conscience.
The USA government is just one form of democracy that has been subverted over centuries by corporate interests. Maybe after all that experience and history we can come up with a democratic system that is (at least) harder to subvert.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Realize that being wealthy isn't just about having lots of money. Our money is fiat money and its value is volatile, so one must diversify one's holdings. Being wealthy is also about owning and controlling things that have value.
Digital data exactly qualifies. Everyone wants it, so it has tremendous value. Therefore, maintaining ownership and control over such data, while simultaneously deriving rent from it, keeps one a lot wealthier than simply selling it would.
Even if they lose a lot of money in potential sales, maintaining control is more valuable, because it keeps their holdings diversified and ultimately keeps them wealthy.
and break the ICE
Now that's a scary thought. Eliminate the double jeopardy statutes & prosecute an 'offender' until he can no longer afford a decent attorney, then once more haul him in with an overworked public defender who gets pressured to plea him out.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
- 1. Campaigning of any sort is not allowed for elected members.
- 2. Elected members are not members of political parties nor members of special interest groups nor executives of large organizations nor major shareholders of such.
they'll do it behind closed doors, in smoke filled rooms, through whispers.
- 3. Elected members are not "representatives" but rather people who are free to vote their conscience.
i cant even begin to count how this would flop.
Read radical news here
Just who is this "law-creating class" of whom you speak (they apparently aren't people)?
Your whole post is a cop-out. Everything is blamed on "the man", "the system", "the law-creating class". Well, these people are put in place by our votes, and their counterparts in business are made wealthy by our purchases.
Now, I'm not so naive as to believe that our politicians spend their time studying "The Federalist", Montesquieu, Locke, and Mill so they can become the most perfect expression of representative government possible. They spend their time trying to get re-elected. And a single letter to a congressman won't do anything, but a large number of such letters, accompanied by a substantial drop in the polls, will most definitely get their attention.
The problem isn't politicians per se. It is apathy and ignorance on the part of the public. If people cared about issues like this like they cared about their local sports team, the politicians would act accordingly, because otherwise they would lose their jobs.
If the RIAA and MPAA have our legislature so tightly controlled and as the ever growing boycott to their overpriced junk media starts to erode away at what little baseline they have left, how long until they use their influence to create insane laws that make it illegal to boycott their product? Don't believe that it will happen? It already happened with the new healthcare legislation that PUNISHES citizens for not purchasing overpriced health insurance from a monopoly. How is that any less insane than extradition for copyright infringement?
What about the duchess of York which violated Turkish law by taking pictures of children in dorms?
I hope the RIAA and MPAA go down in flames. I'm sorry that the US government has been hijacked by corporations and lobbing interests. This is clearly effecting other parts of the world in a profound way.
this discussion is closed, only because there is no use in discussing anything with someone who BELIEVES anything.
Read radical news here
Spoken like a true BELIEVER, ;)
this is experience. its not assumption.
Read radical news here
Current protection against double jeopardy, even in the US, is fairly limited:
One wonders what the Founding Fathers would have thought about this mess.
If he is guilty of any crimes by UK law, then he should be tried in the UK, not in the US. How would american citizens like if they were extradited to Russia. For breaking Russian laws, that forbid owning a firearm. What do you mean "it is ridiculous"? Then why is a man extradited to US for not breaking the law in the UK ?
I don't think precedent is on your side here
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
UK dropped double jeopardy laws in recent years.
As far as I'm concerned we should all take up hacking and start an allout electronic war on our own government. They use the technology against us why not use it against them.
Im Just Sayin
That doesn't stop him arguing the facts, it just means the court won't listen. Which in some ways is where the crux of these extradition cases (O'Dwyr, McKinnon, even the Assange one to a degree) - there are no issues with getting a "fair trial" or humane treatment in the other country *in theory*, we just don't trust them in practice.
Reminds me of that old schtick, "I wish I lived in Theory -- everything works there."
Ah, well.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
They did this already to Marc Emery of Vancouver, BC. He sold seeds thru the mail, which is legal in BC, but the US extradited him for the offence. So there is a legal precedent, however sorry it may be.
Not to brag about sanity, but up here in Canada we just had a court decision in the last year about the legality of suing someone for linking something.
The short version is that its not.
It might be going to appeal, but currently sanity is holding out against the powers of stupid.
This is the price of internet without borders. No-one complains when a '419' con-artist is extradited. But a con-artist has probably broken local laws also.
Welcome to America, here is our court system. Hope you like it.
So a real-world analogy (yes, the Real World does actually exist.....) would be some guy standing on a street-corner, pointing at a bank, and telling people "there's a load of money in there". Does this make him a bank robber?
No, what they're doing here is something far more sinister. They're making an example of this kid, and, more importantly, they're setting a precedent.
Doesn't the US have Double Jeopardy laws though? The Constitution doesn't say that only applies to US citizens, nor does it specify that it only applies to double prosecution in the same jurisdiction, so they wouldn't be able to extradite him because he's protected by that amendment (or they could, but they couldn't legally charge him with anything), surely?
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Well, i told you this would happen. Now you people that blew off what was happening here should care. Expect more of this in the real near future. Even worse when you start passing your own versions of these anti-piracy laws and it will work in both directions..
In 5-10 years i wouldn't be surprised if some international "IP Enforcement Agency" started running around arresting kids in their basement for downloading TOR, or FreeNet or attempting to access pirate bay, even tho it will be blocked. ( if we can even download "content" that are not safely tucked inside a controlled 'market' by then )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Do you people read the fucking articles? Obviously not.
1) What he did was a crime in the UK. Since it happens to affect parties in the US more than the UK, US DoJ is pursuing rather than UK authorities. And shit. Shit. You people are fucking, fucking lazy and stupid. Everytime something fits your ignorant wannabe liberal-anti-autority hacker prejudices, you go with it without reading a goddamned word of reality.
2) Miliary immunity for battlefield actions is entirely different, but I assure you, if an active duty US military personnel committs a felony while off-active-duty in a first-world nation with a mutual extradiction treaty, the US will honor an extradiction request (except in fairly rare circumstances wher they would be subject to courts-martial; and I also assure you, the courts-martial are going to give them worse chances than most European jurisdictions). Again, fuck, shit, your reaction is so much goddamned brain-dead paranoid ideology, that someone should put you out of our misery.
Not strictly. A second trial can be sought if there is "new and compelling evidence".
At the minimum it would force the US to provide compelling evidence of a crime - something the current extradition treaty omits.
How the FUCK is this informative?
As stated in several other articles, what the guy did is also a crime in the UK, and is just being pursued by the US DoJ instead of the UK because the victims are US companies. Which makes this a fairly normal extradiction, not about linking etc etc.
Why is this not one of those days when I have 15 modpoints? I would have gotten rid of all of them shooting down people on this thread.
In copyright law terms, O'Dwyer wasn't making the films "available". The person that made them available was the person who uploaded them to a download site. What O'Dwyer was doing was pointing to those sites, and (allegedly) thus encouraging people to download from them. In civil law, that is known as indirect or contributory infringement, as opposed to direct infringement which is the actual making available of copies. It is "making available" that can be a criminal offence under s.107(2A), not the encouragement or inducement of people to go ahead and download from such sites. Thus, for example, a briefing for UK Trading Standards officers, compiled by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, and hosted on the UK Intellectual Property Office's website, advises them that:
Interestingly, this may also be the position in the United States, where the law on contributory infringement is said to be civil law that has been developed by judges, but not reflected in any provisions of the criminal law. However this point appears not to have been argued by O'Dwyer's lawyers. What should have happened here is that the extradition proceedings should have been thrown out, on the basis that O'Dwyer's actions are not in fact covered by s.107(2A). But he should then have faced a full-on civil action in the UK courts from a consortium of content owners for the alleged indirect infringement. It is also about time that UK judges in extradition cases were directed to consider where a case should best be heard under conflict-of-laws provisions: the so-called "forum clause". In this case, with the alleged infringer being UK-based, and the alleged infringement being worldwide in scope, if this is supposed to be a crime under UK law it should have been tried under UK law.
O idiocy!
You've got nothing to brag about. That decision, like all similar ones (plenty in the US, a decade before your precious citation), no doubt was based on the theory that just because you "link" information, that's not the same as being it's "publisher."
In this case, the guy curated a series of links to copyrighted downloads, actively encouraging infringement and profiting off of it. That's quite a bit different than neutrally linking to someone else's content, which one does not endorse. Or have you never heard of the phrase "contributory copyright infringement?"
The two examples are thus apple and orange. Not the same thing. Black, white. Got it? Or is your Canuck brain frozen?
The US owns the UK. What are you guys... the 55th state or something. Who's up next?
I assume it is informative because it lays out the relevant laws, with some analysis of why or why not they might have been breached. At no point did I state whether or not his actions were a crime in the UK (although, obviously, the judge in this case held that they were, but possibly at a lower standard of proof than required in a full criminal trial). However, I do agree that there's a lot of misinformation going around suggesting that this absolutely wasn't criminal (some, I think, emanating from the defence team over the last few months). It's legality was always in question (with no precise precedent and unclear laws), and while the judge ruled one way today, that still isn't a definitive answer.
Oh, I appear to have missed a "this defence didn't apply" in between "vetted" and "Imho" - sorry for that.
Hmm.
This seems to have attached to your fairly informative post (which is one of the ones I would point people to) and not to one of the high-rated "No, it's not a crime in the UK, the police state is taking over / bending over to the US" posts, I was trying to gouge. Sorry, though (FWIW) I think there's been a little more case law definition of linking's status, at least in the US (as presented here on /.).
I am just so very eager to put the guy in jail and pay taxes to keep him there. Boy does the public win on this or what? maybe 100K to get him investigated and tried and then $30K a year to lock him up. Wow! Don't we win big on this one? Maybe we could win a little less often.
So you think mebbe all that Japanese tentacle porn might be political commentary?
Makes as much sense as a lot of what hits the 'puppet theatre' lately...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I am an American and I am saying this. The people of Britain should take to the streets over this issue en mass. He was obviously wrong but British law should take precedent here. America has no right plucking him from his home soil and exposing him to the abuse that is the American Capital Punishment System.
If you have the capital, you don't get punished.
Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
What I don't understand is how a British person, on British soil, can commit a crime in the US. Did he go to the US and set up and run his servers from there, or did he do it all from the UK? If he did it all from the UK, then it just seems like plain, common sense that he should only be subject to British law. How do you violate US law if you were never in a US jurisdiction? I've always had the same idea about extradition of Colombian drug dealers from Colombia to the US. You have people who have never set foot outside of Colombia, but who somehow find themselves subject to US jurisdiction. How the FUCK does that work?
In Reason We Trust
According to this excellent book, Copyright was first introduced by the Brits and more or less forced upon the US (among others). Now, it's quite ironic (and sad at the same time) that the former British Copyright extremism is coming back from the US to haunt their ordinary citizens.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
The slashretard crowd goes apeshit again biting the bait of a badly written summary. If the linked articles are right, this idiot put up advertising on the site "to pay for server fees" and allegedly made US$ 300,000 from it because "when 300,000 people are hitting you server there is no other way to do it". Way to go, idiot, hope you enjoy the treatment of the US DoJ. I see no problem copying online and I do it all the time but benefitting from the work of others is wrong. This guy is an idiot. Everyone knows the rule: no ads, no monetary reward for anyone involved.
If the American jury thinks O'Dwyer's likely sentence is excessive, it can acquit him regardless of the "law" and the facts, and the acquittal is binding. It's called "jury nullification". Spread the word!