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."
There's a wider issue here because of the hugely lopsided extradition treaty that was signed by Blair and which has been lambasted by most human rights organisations. There has been no need to *prove* anything to get the extradition beyond the fact the USA justice wants him there. For some strange reason the same favour wasn't granted to us in our extradition of American citizens who still have their full legal protections. The same treaty has meant one man has been held without trial for more than 7 years despite having committed no offence in the UK...(although his views were abhorrent they weren't illegal, something the USA used to understand)
It's only happened once in the UK before as well, and then (TV-Links), the case was dismissed. Despite the web being around for some time now, it seems that the issue of linking is only just reaching courts, and unsurprisingly, there will be a few odd rulings until it settles down and precedent is established.
In this case, the US was arguing that providing the website (even merely linking to stuff) was "communicating [copyrighted stuff] to the public", and was "in the course of a business" due to the money being made from adverts (contrary to Section 107 (2A) of the CDPA). The counter-argument was that (as in the TV-Links case) his actions were protected by the 'mere conduit' defence (established by Article 12 of the Electronic Commerce Directive) which protects ISPs, website hosts etc. from the actions of their users. However, in this ruling, the judge seems to have found that because O'Dwyr (the defendant) was in control of the site, and those adding the links had to be "vetted". Imho (as a mere observer, not a lawyer) that's a very narrow interpretation of the Directive, which might be grounds for a successful appeal.
If he does appeal, we might get a "definitive" ruling on the legality of linking, and the scope of the EC Directive defences, which could be very useful (or terrifying, if they go the other way), so in some ways this is a good thing.
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...
I don't usually reply to my own comments, but I realized I got distracted and forgot to present my argument. Here it is:
The extradition arrangement is not reciprocal.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Because the U.K signed a very bad and very lopsided agreement with the U.S, The Extradition Act of 2003 witch implements the US-UK Extradition Treaty of the same years. It was controversial for exactly this, it allows the U.S extradite U.K citizens for infractions of U.S law even when that offense occurred outside the U.S with no ability for U.K to do the same to citizens. What's worse the standard of proof in extradition cases under this act is reasonable suspicion.
That seems pretty sensible. The guy was making large sums of money by running a site that very clearly was designed for piracy. He wasn't some innocent middleman who was abused. He profited handsomely off piracy knowing full well copyright infringement was illegal, and is now being extradited for it.
I'm a Brit and think there are quite a few things wrong with the US/UK extradition treaties that are in place, but the judges ruling is easy to read and logically sound. What he did was an offence under UK law. It would not infringe his human rights to be tried abroad. So what's the big deal? My only concern with this is that the UK Govt didn't prosecute him itself.
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.
Frankly the law in the UK is irrelevant. If he's broken it he should be charged and given a fair trial.
If he hasn't broken it then he shouldn't be persecuted.
I continue to completely fail to understand why the UK government thinks that operating a website from the UK, hosted in the UK, run by someone in the UK should come under US law and be a cause for extradition.
Ignorance of the law is no defence, but apparently this now extends to ignorance of the law of 217 countries.
It's utterly out of fucking order and sadly when I wrote to my MP he completely failed to get the point and replied with a comment on the fairness of the extradition treaty, and not the jurisdiction of the law alleged to have been transgressed. I'd write to him again but frankly he's a cunt. Yes Ken Clarke, I mean you. You're a cunt.