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!
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!
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...
If you don't have a lobby group to back you up it is.
Well, I'd go further than this, as with organised crime ... :)
Google profits from the ads on the pages showing links to (potentially) copyrighted material
Everyone working at Google profits from the money that google make, and shall be liable
Anyone lobbied by someone working for Google is liable too, and then you can take out quite a chunk of the governement
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?
They pay for their immunity.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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?
capitalism happened. power of money transcends borders.
Read radical news here
Google is "grandfathered in". Don't be ridiculous. It's a matter of control, not legality.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
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!
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...
Write to your Congressman urging them to stop this. It's absolutely ridiculous that the US is going after this guy for sharing links. If the British courts found nothing to press charges then why is the US wasting money pursuing this, and we all know it's at the behest of the MPAA, RIAA or whomever. It's stupid to say the least. Here's an idea, put his name on a list and grab him if he ever tries to enter the country. If he never does then he never does, but hell. Part of me would like to see this play out and play out in his favor, he gets extradited, lengthy trial, he gets acquitted. Tax dollars wasted, but the bright side of that scenario would be there would be legal precedent for the next person.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
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
making us subject to the laws of a foreign coutry - without recourse.
the irony of it being the UK subject to the laws of the US is just astounding.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
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.
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?
No, not really. In this case, it is the government of the USA asserting power over the government and the people of the UK. This bears repeating until it gets through even the thickest skulls.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
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
So as long as the US alleges an offence that's extraditable, he can be extradited? They don't have to show some sort of evidence that he actually did it?
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.
I appreciate the importance of copyright as the *right* level of IP protection, in contrast to patents
But the actions of the RIAA and all the rest are so mean spirited and personal even I am going to stop going to movies and buying RIAA music in protest
Sorry, but it seems to me you have a value / price problem, not a piracy problem.
You need to put your price and value proposition at a point where people are less inclined to steal .
People take things that they're barely interested in just to have them, then someone has something they didn't pay for - I get it.
But a business's concern is with making money from their product by meeting the market where it wants to be. If you're doing that, the people who casually rip second quality copies of stuff they're barely interested in are not a real problem.
No market is perfectly efficient. There's a low level drag coming form somewhere at all times- from bad legislation, from their own employees productivity , from dishonest middlemen, from a million different places.
By the same token, businesses get huge boosts from employees who have brilliant flashes of creativity and productivity, long-term-thinking lawmakers, new innovations in the distribution chain and a million other synergies the companies themselves expended nothing to obtain.
So just step back from your time-wasitng, money-wasting abacus on which you're keeping track of all the injustices and slights you think randomo people are dishing out to you and get back to doing the hard work of figuring out what the market is trying to tell you.
Here's a hint- 16.99-18.99 for a fucking CD is too much money. And that's why I buy all mine used online.
Here's another hint. 10-15 bucks to see a movie is too much, and that's why I go see one with my family three or four times a year, if that.
That is, I used to do that. This year, no more movies.
Sorry but you've got to realize that trying to kill the messenger and hanging the pickpockets is not a way to equitable and prosperous society.
The way to a society in which people buy music and see movies is by increasing your value proposition to those people so they want to buy your product.
People LOVE to buy and own things; acquisition possession and pride of ownership are an inherent part of the human character.
HOW could you have fucked that up:????
I don't understand the process.
Doesn't the US just send a team of navy seals to pick up people they are after? I know that this case came up BEFORE Obama had that power (legally), but he does now, so this story is no longer relevant.
The kid will be taken to Gitmo and waterboarded until he confesses. After which he will just lay about in an orange jump suit until the end of time.
It could be worse, the Mossad could just take him out on the street in front of his house.
Nope - same goes for about 20 other countries, and then an even lower standard applies for EU countries. The theory is that the US authorities need to have sufficient evidence back in the US to get their arrest warrant (i.e. satisfying probable cause) that asking them to prove the same in the UK is redundant.
It's kind of like when flying, and taking a connection, not having to go through security twice; if the second flight trusts the first flight, they can assume that you've already been sufficiently checked.
look, how many times do we have to go thru this.
'writing to your congressman' is an exercise in 2 things:
- getting your name on a 'watch list' of some kind, at some level
- wasting your time
unless writing the letter also includes a healthy sized check, your letter is less than useless. don't people KNOW this by now?
the connection between the people and the law-creating class is cut. has been cut for decades (maybe even a century or more, in fact). why we keep teaching this myth is beyond me. oh right, its in the law-creating class' *best interest* to keep this myth going. keeps people under the illusion that they have some say in their government.
writing to congress does no good. voting does no good as all parties want this kind of power. you won't get fixes from within the system, that's what I'm saying. to expect the system to fix itself is beyond absurd.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
you ARE right, business associates is a fitting and accurate term.
THERE IS MONEY TO BE MADE.
in lots of ways. follow it.
this isn't about revenge on someone killing a man's wife. this isn't about some large and weighty justice matter. this is about media wanting to stomp on anyone that threatens its model and its prepared to use ANY means at all, even crossing international lines.
any more proof of total corruption of both of our systems? I've seen (over the years) all I need to see. I'm convinced that our systems are fucked. thru and thru, up and down all layers save for the very bottom (which are the regular people, mostly powerless and just working their jobs). the ones who stand to gain are the upper layers and they play this 'game' very well.
modern legals systems are no more just than they were 100, 500 or 5000 years ago. basically, power still wins. not much has changed, in that respect.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
And the USA never signed their half of the bargain.
They delayed, but it was eventually ratified on both sides of the Atlantic.This happened during that rather unfortunate time when Blair's government was lubing up and giving the Bush administration anything it asked for, in the hope that complete servility would improve the trans-atlantic relationship. Blair had little success. Bush was always the pitcher, and Blair the catcher. The best he achieved was an occasional reach-around, and ultimately what was there to show for this? Hemorrhoids and a fucking big bill for Bush's religious/ideological and incompetently pursued wars. Blair would do this world a favor by removing himself from it, and he can fucking take Cameron and Clegg with him.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Are all UK citizens now living under US law, to be extradited at any time?
In effect, yes.
Any further questions?
I believe some countries are basically trusted to not lodge garbage prosecutions (ie for things that clearly could not have been done by the defendant or completely trivial offences), and it's assumed people get fair trials there. So as long as the law being violated as a local analogue it's not a problem.
Now whatever you may believe about copyright law, this guy ran a site called "TVShack", made over 10,000 GBP a month off ads and only allowed piracy-related links onto his site. Prosecuting him for copyright infringement isn't a garbage prosecution.
Where it does run aground is in cases where some countries are trusted to be reasonable and then are not. The Polish habit of extraditing people for speeding offences has caused a lot of grumbling because the cost of the extradition is so ridiculous compared to the size of the offence. So there are some talks of revisiting the blanket assumption that all EU countries have trustworthy legal systems.
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.
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.
If it was an offence under UK law then he should be tried in the UK, period. America's governments have a history of coming down very harshly on file-sharers, arguably because of the large sums of money 'donated' to their campaigns by big media. Also recall that Obama recently signed in a law allowing indefinite detention without trial for foreign and domestic suspects.
I have written a letter to my MP demanding that he stand up for the rights of a British citizen to be tried for crimes in a British court under British law.
How can he have a trial by his peers? All his peers are in Britain...
If the British courts found nothing to press charges then why is the US wasting money pursuing this, and we all know it's at the behest of the MPAA, RIAA or whomever.
Guess they coyldn't pressure the UK government, and through them the British courts, like the did the Swedes. Not long before some Swedish politicos visited Washington, the DA that later brought the case agains TPB said (in effect) "Nothing we can do about TPB given the current laws" - guess he saw the light.
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.
Did he make more than Google does with its search engine? Because they are essentially one and the same thing, in practice. The fact that Google search engine has other uses is a fair point, but not technically relevant IMO.
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???
Far too much hassle. Why send soldiers when a predator drone can put a stop to his filesharing permanently?
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 then, getting your name on the watch list is a good thing. Heck, if they have more than a half of population on the watch list, then what do they do, employ the other half to watch those, who are on the list?
The problem now is even if everyone stops watching movies and listening to music RIAA and MPAA wil simply claim that it is because of the piracy and we need a media tax. Say 20% of your total income. Or 50%. That sounds fair. And if you don't like it, there is nowhere you can go, as US is expanding their policies bought by RIAA and MPAA and paid for by your money to other countries as well.
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
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.
It's absolutely ridiculous that the US is going after this guy for sharing links.
I may be wrong, but I have a suspicion that merely downloading copyrighted materials for your own use is not a crime in the UK and, therefore, having a website collecting links not just a non-violation of copyright (since the links are not copies of anything), but it's not even aiding other people to commit a copyright infringement. Could anyone with better knowledge of the UK law contribute to this? Does UK have other stance on this than the rest of the Europe?
Ezekiel 23:20
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
...trying to kill the messenger and hanging the pickpockets is not a way to equitable and prosperous society
They're not after an equitable and prosperous society; they want to enslave everyone. And, it seems to me they're doing a good job.
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.
Worse, he'll get free healthcare courtesy of the US government. Granted he'd get it in the UK, but none-the-less
s. 107 (2A) A person commits an offence who - makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work
Is that even English?? What the hell is it supposed to mean? The document has three different meanings of the word "article" being used all over the place, and it doesn't even look like it defines it properly... Does it mean you shouldn't make a website? A proxy? A book? A p2p program? A freaking magazine article? What?
I wish I had 1000 mod points for you. Well said! As far as that watch list.. I was thinking the same thing myself. Main reason I decided not to write. (They will serve warrants to seize computers of people on the list) I guess I am not the only one who see thees charlatans for who they are.
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 -
Worse, he'll get free healthcare courtesy of the US government. Granted he'd get it in the UK, but none-the-less
Well, the pres and the PM always insist on everyone being healthy before they're broken. And no one withstands The Machine.
Yeah no one is going to give them that ever. Sure, they'd argue for it, but it's never going to happen. Onward with the boycott!
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."
Data smuggler is the new drug smuggler
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
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!
Yeah they may in fact want to enslave everyone or at least get all our money or whatever it is that drives these types to such extreme measures but no one is going to facilitate that.
Don't copy their crap. Do something else. Make your own crap. Download Creative Commons crap. Support artists who aren't down with the RIAA.
They don't have any power if enough people stop don't buying their shit. Stop liking their shit more than you like justice. Get involved with other people online who create stuff outside of this greedy octopus.
THAT is what REALLY keeps them up at night. People just walking away.
The UK and USA have a extradition agreement. It basically says, if a US/UK citizen is breaking the law in the other country (with limits), they can be arrested and moved to the other countries court to stand trial. I'm not sure if this covers civil cases but I think the US would go with the "he stole $ amounting to more than the extradition minimum" reason.
Hint, most countries have extradition agreements that include theft, murder, and even patent infringement. In all cases it's up to the country the individual is in to arrest and extradite him.
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."
They're totally different. Google indexes the whole web in order to allow searching. This guy was controlling everything that was posted by vetting the people registering content on the site. He was specifically accepting and communicating links for infringing content.
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 ?
How the hell did a small 1 man website earn $230,000 over a 3 year period (2 years of which where slap bang in the middle of a global recession) in click-through ads?
Seriously? any other part time 1 man websites pulling in that sort of money from ads in 2007 without gaming the system and clicking the ads for the end user?
That figure is presented without any sources or evidence; just a claim by the "US Customs and Border Protection Agency". BS made up to satisfy the need to prove commercial gain and motive.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
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.
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.
You must be new to this planet.
Short of a quasi or full revolution, it will happen if we refuse to use MPAA/RIAA content. They are the new mob.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Historians of the future are going to have a field day with present day USA. Hollywood, that dinky little movie making town, part of the city of Los Angeles, bought the US gov't to the point Hollywood could compel the extradition of web link posters from England, its former masters?!? What's next, the moon really is made of cheese? I thought 20th Century Prohibition was a stretch, but this is truly audacious.
I think that the framers of the Constitution should have spent less time worrying about the power of gov't, and a lot more on the power of lawyers.
USA: I commend your restraint. That you can watch this batshit craziness go on and still not implode is damned near amazing.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
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.
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
Getting as many people on the watchlist creates the fine-grained control the government appears to want. Seems that the powers-that-wanna-be took lessions from Lavrentiy Beria.
Comrade Beria was 'Uncle Joe' Stalin's hatchetman in the NKVD, precourser to the KGB. He came up through the Party ranks in the original 'Cheka' by reputedly setting up his superiors in some kind of scandal, usually coming up with evidence of sexual scandals, either real or manufactured. When his boss resigned in disgrace, Comrade Beria was standing there ready to go to work in his new job, usually purging possibly disloyal 'coworkers' in the process.
When 'Uncle Joe' died, Beria was the frontrunner to become the 'big boss' of the Soviet Union, until Nikita Khrushchev, Gregori Malenkov, and Vyacheslav Molotov (of 'Molotov Cocktail' fame) had him arrested on over 150 counts of rape, sodomy, child molestation, and abuse of office. In the 'investigation' that followed, he was tried for high treason and reputedly executed in December 1953, although apocryphal evidence claims he was actually shot and killed during his arrest in July '53.
Whether Beria did what they say he did is immaterial. The lession we garner from the events is, it just don't matter what you do, at the end of the day, if the powers-that-wanna-be want you bad enough, they'll find a way.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
That may be true, but they also have to recognize the fact that there are always going to be people for whom there is no reasonable value/price ratio they are willing to pay--and simply ignore them because they are an entirely lost cause. It may be who they are or it may be a transient circumstance that will change in the future; if it's the latter, these companies should want to ensure that when circumstances change, these people return as customers. The people who never were and never will be customers aren't worth the resources.
As a simple example, me without a job: Pirated things. Me with a job, have not pirated anything since that point; just got through spending a bit over $100 during the Steam holiday sales; bought Battlefield 3 (even though I don't particularly like the franchise!) on Black Friday or Cyber Monday or one of those just because the price was good; bought MW3, Skyrim and SW:TOR; plus a handful of purchases on sites like Vudu that don't amount to too much. That's somewhere in the vicinity of $250 since the beginning of November (so 2.5 months, roughly).
Unemployed Me wasn't going to pay for anything. What money I did have was needed to pay for bills and I could not point my finger to a time where I would have a job again, so I wasn't going to appropriate any of that money to games, movies or music. Employed Me is what I would have to assume they consider to be a very good customer.
They could punish Unemployed Me with a lawsuit. I wouldn't be able to pay it, meaning doing so would earn them $0 and cost them whatever their lawyers charge. What's more, it would very likely have cost them that future income -- I am not inclined to do business with a company who just sued me. Worst case, I would make sure to buy everything used so they don't see a dime of it. I'd have to forego things like MW3 I guess, since multiplayer was the crux of it, but Skyrim would still be an option. It would be a small price to pay (and, hm, let's see: 100 hours in Skyrim versus about 13 in MW3 -- am I missing out that much?).
Now granted, there is still room to improve even for Employed Me, as you rightly point out. Music is still overpriced. So are video games, particularly with as many as I end up not liking (including ones in series' that I have previously liked; what were you thinking, Dragon Age 2?!). I have an impulse buy range for games <$10, with a slightly more stringent buy range <$20. Anything else has to be something I am deliberately looking forward to, which mostly means sequels to games I enjoyed. If they brought their prices down, I'm sure I would end up spending more money overall even at times when I am spending. They don't want to consider that, of course. For some reason they're willing to take a 33% chance of getting $60 instead of a 100% chance of getting $20, hoping to play the chance lottery and win the jackpot. It wouldn't stamp out piracy, by any means, but it would certainly reduce it. Piracy is a supply/demand problem like any other.
Instead, they would rather litigate their "lost sale," as if that is ever going to bring people back to being their customer.
You, Sir, owe me a new keyboard... +1 for plain speaking.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
I did too, but unfortunately he thought I had issues with the reciprocal nature of the extradition treaty rather than the need for British citizens to be held to account by British law and not that of other nations.
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
Actually, the US backed out of their side of the deal. Now UK has extradition obligations to the US, but none the other way around.
That may be true, but they also have to recognize the fact that there are always going to be people for whom there is no reasonable value/price ratio they are willing to pay--and simply ignore them because they are an entirely lost cause. It may be who they are or it may be a transient circumstance that will change in the future; if it's the latter, these companies should want to ensure that when circumstances change, these people return as customers. The people who never were and never will be customers aren't worth the resources.
Well said! This is exactly my point and nothing ore. I hope that was clear in what I said.
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.
Ahh with respect to patent infringement, actually no.
The patent has to be valid in both countries. So for instance, software patents are not valid in the UK so if you write infringing software there and sell it there it's too bad for the whoever has the US patent.
What you can't do is write it there (UK) and sell it here (in the US) .
I am not sure if write it here and sell it here and sell it in the UK if the UK will accommodate the US but at any rate, you'll be sued in the US . You have to confine yourself to the UK and similar (non-sw-patent) markets.
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.
He wasn't just "posting links". A site that embeds streaming video may technically be doing that but the result is quite different.
The fact that people want to represent it as "linking" makes it look like they have something to conceal.
The USA did eventually ratify the treaty, but it is still very one sides. Crude summary:
The USA does not even need to say "please", they can just demand anyone and the UK needs to hand them over.
The UK, in contrast, must prove to a USA court that there is a case to answer.
Hopefully someone will come along soon who will explain why the "Land of the Free" requires such fascist policies and is actively supporting the communist ideals of the MAFIAA (as in: no choice, no competition, only "official channel" and total observation).
Ah, but the difference is, Google doesn't 'prune' its 'non-pirating' links away, as the MAFIAA claims the deportee did. They're claiming his site was strictly for piracy-related activities, not a general search engine.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
That's s107 (2), which isn't in play here, but yes, "article" in that context hasn't been defined , which is why prosecutors in the UK have been able to use s107(1)(e) to go after non-commercial file-sharers before (despite s107(2A)(b) being added specifically for that purpose), claiming that an .mp3 file etc. is an "article". I don't have access to all my legalish resources at the moment, but I imagine that "article" in this context merely means "thing" - but I don't think s107(2) has ever been used against software specifically.
However, the CDPA is rather badly-written in some places and a real mess - much of it being written on behalf of the legacy publishers in the 80s, so it doesn't really know about computer stuff, and the rest has been cobbled together following subsequent lobbying and EU legislation. The UK really could do with a new Copyright Act, but hopefully we're currently at the high point in the scope of copyright, so it might be worth struggling on for a few more years until copyright law is a bit more reasonable.
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.
So, people should rebel like rioting? :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Pretty sure the person you want to read that does not read slashdot. You should forward it to your intended audience, not your incidental one.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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?
Sorry this is just too stupid and destructive to let slip by.
Oh I get where the paranoia in this post and the ones supporting it are coming from. You've got a disk filled with *stuff* and you are afraid to stick your head up. OK OK I get it now.
Look, dump your *stuff*. Do you really need to have Spiderman 15 - the Final, Final Prequel on your disk at the cost of waling around totally paranoid and afraid to participate in your democracy?
Don't do that.
Look at what you give them by doing that. You empower them to seize your computer , in theory.
You dis-empower yourself because you're paranoid because you've got something to hide.
So they get all the power, don't they? You're too afraid to even stick your head up long enough to write your Congresscritter.
Well, I have to tell you, when you find you're in a hole, stop digging.
You don't HAVE to pirate things you can't afford , especially with entertainment for gawds sake.
When I read things like this story I think the RIAA is a bunch of asswipes and resolve to defund them through my buying behavior.
At the same time I think- I never would have maintained that site, no way.
Spiderman 16: Back From The Dead and Ready For Action is NOT a political cause worth risking jail for.
Want to strike fear into the RIAA lawyer's hearts? Defund the people who pay their bills. That's taking it to the man. Stop buying their shit, stop downloading their shit be a part of a Creative Commons creative venture of your choice and PARTICIPATE IN YOUR DEMOCRACY.
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.
I'm still confused about this legal rendition. The planet has human predators routinely imposing their sociopathic form of genocide, and U.S. Law Enforcement is going after a Movie Copy?!
Mister gMan, while your on the job preventing chaos, there's a fruit truck out back, it's missing a grape.
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.
Yeah, what if Saudy Arabia asks for extradition of all the pornsite owners... Gonna need some extra airplanes.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
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
That you can watch this batshit craziness go on and still not implode is damned near amazing.
Just wait another 5 years.
The IP war in the U.S. and other first world countries is this generation's equivalent to the space race of the former U.S.S.R. and (much of) the second world.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
UK dropped double jeopardy laws in recent years.
I don't know how you guys do it, but I think it's time to get yourself another MP then. Perhaps somebody who won't bend over backwards for industry groups and your former colony.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
It's kind of like when flying, and taking a connection, not having to go through security twice; if the second flight trusts the first flight, they can assume that you've already been sufficiently checked.
Bad analogy. I took a plane from Europe that only stopped off on the US on the way to a year or two ago, & they made me go through security again, at which point they confiscated my laser pointer that I'd traveled with on the same plane that I was getting back onto. I never left the departure lounge.
I doubt they are watching this batshit craziness. I doubt any more than 0.1% of the populace are even aware that the MPAA / RIAA are exerting their influence beyond American borders and attempting to interfere with the law making process of every major country in the world. Also that 0.1% would likely be the studios themselves pushing for it all.
Its one thing if some stupid company wants to sue Ireland or something, at least they have to pay their own legal bills. While its not exactly fair when they go after individuals for extortion because the have oodles of money and a small army of lawyers.
However I think it is criminal that the same stupid company can get one country to try to criminally charge another in another country.
Just think about how much it will cost to extradite this guy and prosecute him? Millions of taxpayer money is now being used. That is theft. They are using your money for their purposes.
This is basically the MPAA going after someone using your money to front it. If ever there was a waste of taxpayer money this is it. Particulary when governments are bitching and moaning about "the times we live in", and "austerity measures", etc...
Downloading copyrighted materials for your own use is a crime in the UK. There is no "fair use" clause in that respect. As to whether or not hosting a website containing links directed towards copyright material constitutes secondary or contributory copyright infringement... well, that's the million pound question, isn't it? The case law isn't yet clear on that matter and is presently evolving. Sorry to give a cop out answer, but it's hard to be more precise at the moment.
Case in point, the CEO of Union Carbide, whom the US refused to extradite to India after the Bhopal incident.
See, if you're Big Money, you get to do anything you want without fear of repercussions.
If you have offended Big Money, you will face unjust wrath.
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."
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.
I think that the framers of the Constitution should have spent less time worrying about the power of gov't, and a lot more on the power of lawyers.
The framers did a good job in many respects, but they left a huge bug in the system of checks and balances: there is no penalty for legislators who propose and pass laws that are later declared unconstitutional. People like the SOPA/PIPA sponsors have no reason not to keep throwing crap at the wall, knowing that eventually outrage fatigue will set in and something will stick.
What's needed is to amend the Constitution to provide a way to slam the Overton Window shut on our legislators' fingers. If there were any sort of professional or personal sanction involved in authoring an unconstitutional bill, things would change in a hurry. (They might actually read what they're voting on, for one thing.)
Interestingly enough, after we're long extincted by our inability to cooperate a way off of this rock before another smaller rock hits it, the Alien Anthropologists will find an intact volume of "How It's Made" to be the future equivalent of the Rosetta Stone.
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?
I doubt any more than 0.1% of the populace are even aware that the MPAA / RIAA are exerting their influence beyond American borders and attempting to interfere with the law making process of every major country in the world.
I suspect you're correct. Post SOPA/PIPA, $shit's going to hit the wall, though, when pedestrians learn they can't go anywhere useful. Interesting times. :-P
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
No. They give the other half guns, and declare the first half to be 'terrorists'
I think he actually bends over forwards, if the movies I've downloaded are based on real-life events. Ah shit, I guess I'm gonna be extradited now, for admitting that?
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 ----
Write to your Congressman urging them to stop this.
Just be sure to include a hefty 'campaign donation' or you might as well just toss it in the trash, as that is what they will do. They no longer represent us common citizen.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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.
Plenty of room for more courthouses in Texas. They could make it compulsory for defendants to buy pink panties and live in tents.
I hear ICE is lunching with the producers of COPS....
Great ideas. Here's what's wrong with them, worst case scenario.
There are only a finite combination of notes playable on a scale, only so many ways they can be combined. Case in point, Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen, but I digress. There are also only so many stories to be told. Ever notice how all the 'high school kid' movies are all alike? It's the same story told over and over.
Disney has looted everybody's childhood all over the globe and made cartoons of their favorite legends and bedtime stories, all in the public domain. They then proceded to copyright everything they could to 'secure' what they considered to be 'their' intellectual property. They tend to have fairly litigious and agressive attorneys. How long until every concept, every plot idea, every characterisation is is locked away in a Disney vault guarded by rabid lawyers? And even if you come up with what you think is an original idea, can you afford an attorney to prove it against what Disney et al can field against you?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
I would be with you 100% if copyright were enforced with the same broad latitude afforded patents, but its not.
In a nutshell, you're free to retell Sleeping Beauty to suit yourself and sell it and profit from it. Disney HAS raided the collective cultural heritage for ideas, but they don't OWN those ideas the way ideas are OWNED in software patents.
The point about "so many notes" is interesting. There are not more or less notes, clefs, keys, time signatures and rhythms than there have ever been. yet we've gone through innumerable musical styles and songs since the Gregorian Chants and all of them are original to their owners and in the eyes of the law.
There's no reason to expect that we're running out of new combinations. Apparently, the human mind (ear) is very sensitive to slight differences in music. Thus people love or panic over Elvis in his time and love the Beatles or KNOW they represent cultural Armageddon.
Only very direct and sustained copying is going to get anyone into court. It's a fad to rip and remix now; IMHO with an emphasis on the H there, this is just laziness trying to pass itself off as "a right".
If you listen to pop long enough, you start to feel like it's ALL a remix until something really new comes along, say once every 25 years or so. But no one prosecutes anyone for being lame-o. Perhaps this is a shame.
My point is, you have to deliberately and malignantly RRRRRIIIIPPP! an artist off to end up with a copyright infringement ala My Sweet Lord /She's So Fine. .
Now some artists deliberately remix old things into something that is arguably new. I have mixed (rimshot!) feelings on this. basically I think the old artists should be glad someone cared enough about his shitty song to give it a second life and check his bank account to see if it's getting goosed by the remix.
But they don't take this attitude and off to court we go. How would I decide? I guess a cut of the profits of the new song for the old guy but no hard and fast damages.
There's my attempt to be Solomon on Slashdot.
But back to your point. If you genuinely feel oppressed and stymied because you think Disney owns all ideas or we're running out of note combinations, research the law in this area and just consider your worries about note combinations to have been an error and go get your guitar....
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 don't know how you guys do it, but I think it's time to get yourself another MP then. Perhaps somebody who won't bend over backwards for industry groups and your former colony.
Which former colony? There were 13 of them that eventually became a part of the U.S, and others that formed Canada. ;).
This space unintentionally left blank.
So what's the big deal?
The big deal is the failure to recoup the costs. Extradition and prosecution are big, expensive things for both our societies, and we will not get a greater return on this than it costs.
Making burglary illegal has a handsome ROI for society. So do littering laws and equal opportunity lending regulations. That's the whole purpose of law, really, is to codify all the rules that we as a society are better off with than without.
Problem is, this extradition (in the broad sense of all the enforcement it represents, and the associated cost) is a counter-case. It will not even increase the revenue to the copyright holders in question by the amount it will cost society -- let alone net, and let alone net to society.
The problem is that we are going to ever more extreme lengths to fail to solve the supposed problem. We are spending more and more money on these ill-conceived laws to fail to increase GDP by an equal amount, to fail to increase the profit of the companies to which we are pandering by an equal amount, and even to fail to increase their revenue by an equal amount. And that should be no surprise. The further you step outside of natural law (like physical property) and minimal inhibition to trade, the more friction your economy will experience. You get to a point where every additional step increases the rate at which you lose money. We pole-vaulted over that fine line more than a decade ago.
And that is not even counting the cost of all the new business models we have inhibited along the way. We should be focusing our entrepreneurial investment on new business models that capitalize on the Internet, not spending ever more executive branch funds creating minefields for the new business world to protect a good, but archaic, business model that may simply not work any more.
The big deal is that this is not a cost efficient thing for our societies to be doing. It is not in the interest of our nations. Reality has changed, and we are not adapting. We are sticking our fingers in our ears and shouting "Na Na Na I cannot Hear You. Na Na Na." It is as jaw-dropping a spectacle of willful economic ignorance as watching the Soviet Union insist on Communism in the 80s.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It is no secret that none of this sick SOPA MPAA/RIAA crap is being discussed on the evening news....Not a pep from then,nary a one.Big media controls everything we read, as well as radio and tv. and they decide what is important. To say these megalomaniacs are itching major big time to control the net as well is an understatement. They don't like it when we can decide for ourselves what's correct and leave them out of the loop. Nope,not one bit...So they simply have a total media blackout, pay off congress and try to push this shit through sight unseen so they can max out on power and control the net and all of humanity with an iron fist. Why is the entertainment industry given such astounding power? What astounds me is how the UK just says "Sure thing boss." to the US and it's entertainment cartel with god complexes rather than "Kiss off." I'm really sick of watching this country being such an obnoxious bully and the rest of the world letting it get away with it.
Derivitive works. PROVE you weren't influenced by Disney when you make your new Sleeping Beauty movie. Trust me, they can afford to field more lawyers than you. Derivitive works are covered under the copyright of the work you derived it from. The 'original copyright holder' owns it.
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.
This raises the questions of a) why Julian Assange is still in the UK, and b) why is he so concerned about going to Sweden ?
Whoa there, champ. Ignorance of the law is absolutely a defence, albeit one (naturally) not recognised by the legal system.
If you disagree, I would expect you to be able to reproduce, from memory and without reference to any sources, the entire legal code of whatever jurisdiction(s) you happen to fall within, past and present.
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.
I didn't say it was a fair situation, but claiming not to know a specific point of law does not prevent you being found guilty of transgressing it.
With a good judge it will be taken in mitigation when determining an appropriate response.
Yeah but a derivative work is one that has the same characters as the ones made up by Disney. Sleepy Dopey Etc. Sure you can't rip Disney off directly (although Mickey should have come into public domain, I think we're agreed) in that way, but the story that Sleeping Beauty is based on, the IDEA of it you can do whatever you want with.
Some of what's said here on Slashdot is wrong and bad for Slashdotters to believe because it has the net effect of de-motivating them from expending effort and engaging with the world.
Who wants to put effort into anything if you're just going to have it all taken away because THEY own everything?
It's not true. If you're wondering where the lines are drawn in this war, and we're all on the same side in this, Lawrence Lessig is a reliable source. recomend