Slashdot Mirror
TVShack Creator's US Extradition Approved
chrb writes "British student Richard O'Dwyer, creator of the TVShack website, has had his extradition to the United States approved by Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May. Mr. O'Dwyer now has 14 days to appeal the decision. The extradition was requested by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which has accused O'Dwyer of aiding copyright infringement by publishing links to pirated content hosted on external sites."
I'm more afraid of the US government than I am of any terrorists.
Way to go big boys! Extradite a harmless college kid who might be doing something moderately illegal but who's transgressions don't amount for a hill of beans, all things considered.
Leave those nice bankers and upstanding Wall Street financiers to ruin the economy with nothing more than an indignant letter and a small fine.
Yep, leaders of the free world we are.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
What's wrong with the U.K laws on copyright infringement that a U.K. citizen needs to be shipped to a foreign country to face this kind of stuff? I don't remember any U.S. citizens getting shipped to some other country for this?
Why isn't the U.S. on the Enemies of the Internet 'under surveillance' list? Russia and Australia and the UK are there, but the U.S. isn't? It makes no logical sense.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The problem is the UK government.
Extradited for copyright infringement? Looks like both governments are "pwned". I know, lets make them bigger, that'll solve the problem.
Deleted
For posting a bunch of links, he is being extradited? Well, I guess that is what happens when politicians accept bribes from the copyright lobby...
Palm trees and 8
So, what this guy did is not a crime in the UK, but because it is in the US he is being sent to stand trial there. Basically, UK citizens are subject to US law (albeit it can only be selectively applied).
Something to worry about for everyone in a country that has an extradition treaty with US.
Way to go big boys! Extradite a harmless college kid who might be doing something moderately illegal but who's transgressions don't amount for a hill of beans, all things considered.
Leave those nice bankers and upstanding Wall Street financiers to ruin the economy with nothing more than an indignant letter and a small fine.
Yep, leaders of the free world we are.
You dirty, diseased hippie! Do you not understand the ineffable majesty of the free market? Behold! Mammon hath spoken and lo, the government has acceded to its demand. In my father's house there are many rooms but you have to pay your way if you want to stay. The bankstas have bought their way into heaven, as hath been shewn to be just in the Gospel of Wealth.
Blessed are the rich: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who own: for to those who hath much, more shall be given.
Fuck the meek: for they shall inherit shit.
Fuck those who hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be mulch in the flowerbeds of the wealthy.
Blessed are the powerful: for they shall gain more power.
Blessed are the pure of avarice: for they shall take more than they are owed.
Blessed are the warmakers: for they shall make bank on both sides of the conflict.
Blessed are those who persecute: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
His extradition is definitely a crock. If what he did is not a crime under UK law, then it shouldn't matter if it is under US law. I'm sure many things I do are crimes in other countries, but if they asked the US to extradite me they would be laughed at. The internet is an international entity (will more specifically, it is non-national). If someone does something on the internet that is legal in their country, then that is all that matters. If someone from your country accesses it and they shouldn't, deal with the people who fall under your laws.
As for what he actually did, I am torn on it. He obviously did not actively violate copyright since he just linked. But I think he definitely wasn't in the right either, as he was actively making money off of piracy. To take a real world example, if I set up a business that tracked drug dealers and you could pay me 5 dollars to tell you exactly where the drug dealer was that had what you were looking for, I would definitely be prosecuted for aiding and abetting or conspiracy or something. I am not doing anything illegal, as I am not selling drugs, but I am certainly helping the people who are doing something illegal.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
He didn't break any UK laws. But he can get extradited. That makes no sense. Never mind the fact that he never actually provided any copyrighted information, just links to it.
This is so horribly flawed, it isn't funny. Welcome to a world in which extraterritorial laws can be applied whenever someone wishes -- or, more accurately, when the government in question can exert enough pressure on your own. Which basically is the US.
Can't wait for Americans to be extradited to Iran or somewhere else for violating their laws ... because it would be hypocritical to deny the request now.
After all, if you can ask for the extradition of someone who didn't break any laws in their country, you can't deny to extradite your own people who broke the laws of another country. But, we won't see that.
Someone jumped the shark here, not sure if it was the UK or the US to be honest. I think both have set a horrible precedent.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I don't understand why ANY government would want to take down these sites - even if they are in the pocket of Big Media.
Websites which simply link to content point you to the people providing the content, making it much easier to find the people committing the actual crime.
Why not let these sites stay up, let people run them, and just mine them for data?
Once all the providers of infringing content have been sued / arrested / whatever, the linking sites have nothing to link to, and they die out too.
Is my reasoning incorrect, or is it just too high a level of thinking for the government to handle?
Love sees no species.
On Tuesday his mother said: "Today, yet another British citizen is being sold down the river by the British Government.
Dear British government: Please grow a pair and tell the US to fuck off.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
He will be charged with everything they can think of. Made up stuff, real stuff from jaywalking to treason.
He will be facing 300 years possible sentence if convicted of even half of it.
He will be facing a 5 years incarceration just waiting for a trial.
They will offer a plea deal: plead to being a bad boy and you can go home tomorrow, wear a radio on your ankle for a year and that's it.
He will do the deal.
The US will get a conviction, which they will trumpet from the rooftops. They will have a precedent that they covet, and anyone running any similar operation will pretty well have to stop it, lest they meet with a much worse fate.
The American's, no doubt, believe they are doing this fella a favour, since their first instinct was to scoop him up into a black helicopter, or even just nuke him remotely while he rides his bike to school.
Fuck Allah! Can I now be extradited to Saudi Arabia for violating Sharia Law?
And all was sorta OK until the regulations were relaxed. NOT a coincidence.
Some years back, the home secretary decided that pinochet wouldn't be extradited because he was...too sick, yeah, too sick. So someone who makes a few links gets extradited for something that isn't a crime in the UK and a mass murderer doesn't even though he murdered thousands. I'm ashamed of the U.S. If I were a UK citizen, I'd be ashamed too.
Australia weathered the financial crisis with hardly a blip due to our strong regulatory regime. Free marketers are deluded if they think deregulation does any good other than to allow more corruption.
David Cameron talks about wanting the UK to produce its own internet giants. How can there ever be a "British Google" or the like under a system which ships off British innovators to the US when their business operates in the tricky legal grey area of international/internet boundaries? If YouTube didn't exist and were invented in Britain tomorrow, the creators would be extradited to the US post-hate, rather than allowed to develop their legitimate business. If Cameron actually wants the UK to punch above its weight on the internet, he needs to start fostering a culture of explicitly supporting British businesses and bedroom startups.