Slashdot Mirror
Jimmy Wales Calls UK Government To Halt O'Dwyer Extradition
judgecorp writes "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has called on the UK government to stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer. O'Dwyer was accused of infringing copyright with his site TVShack, but charges were dismissed in the UK. Wales has set up a petition and calls this the start of a new 'Internet war' following the successful opposition to SOPA earlier this year."
Silly Jimmy. Don't you know that U.S. law *is* international law?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Finally, a new banner for Wikipedia!!
So, A UK citizen is cleared of breaking any UK laws, yet he still 'faces extradition' to another country, one he's not a citizen of and has probably never even been to, who claims he broke their laws? How the fuck does that even get considered? If I, an American citizen, set up a website that was perfectly legal in my country but criminal in, say, Swaziland, would the US government honor an extradition request for my ass? I highly doubt it.
That's the definition of ri-goddamn-diculous.
Don't take this shit, UK - tell my government (and, by extension, the MAFIAA) to piss up a fucking rope. You are a sovereign nation, act like one.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Whew. I read that as "O'Dwyer execution" .
Traditionally, extradition laws were clear. You kill someone, flee the country and that country asks for you to be returned. As long as what you did is a crime in both jurisdictions, you get returned. Slightly more complicated: you stand near the border and shoot someone across the border; here, I think, most people would agree with extradition, even though you weren't in the target country when the crime was committed.
Now what we have is , someone not resident in country X, sets up a web site not hosted in country X, but because some users access it from country X, country X has the right to extradite you, even if the country you reside in doesn't think a crime has been committed. So, should a US-hosted site that (amongst other things) sells Nazi memorabilia, have its operators extradited to Germany? Etc.
"The DeCSS case is almost certainly a harbinger of what I would consider to be the defining battle of censorship in cyberspace. In my opinion, this will not be fought over pornography, neo-Nazism, bomb design, blasphemy, or political dissent. Instead, the Armageddon of digital control, the real death match between the Party of the Past and Party of the Future, will be fought over copyright."
John Perry Barlow, http://www.isoc.org/oti/articles/1000/barlow.html
Did he put his picture on top of the letter with a big H2 headline "And appeal from Jimmy Wales"?
It's unbelievable. I object to this crap on so many different levels:
First, nations have little control over the laws in other nations. The UK, for instance, has scant control over the insane copyright laws in the US. But they are considering extraditing one of their citizens to the US for allegedly breaking those laws. What if some other country makes it illegal to look at an image of a woman with an uncovered face? Will the US extradite me to that nation for breaking their "laws"? Where does it end?
Second, it's old news that copyright and patent laws in the US have long strayed past their constitutional purpose. In fact, at this point, it's well established that the laws actually act counter to, rather than in support of, the intent of Article 1, section 8. How much longer will we blindly assent to this?
Lastly, we are in a bad economy, and the government is flailing for resources. Especially in that situation, I don't want them spending my tax dollars to extradite and prosecute someone for breaking stupid laws on behalf of tainted, greedy and evil corporations. There are much better ways to use our Justice Dept. monies.
Really, stop the madness. It's gotten so bad I don't even know where to begin working to make it better. I suppose a donation to the EFF is a good start.
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
This was meant as a reply to LordLimecat. Sorry.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Apparently all he did was put up a web site that had a collections of links to pirated content apparently owned by American companies.
This is quite a bit different than actually hosting the content.
IANAL, but I don't believe the copyright infringement claims will be proven, and I doubt O'Dwyer will be convicted.
I think this is being done as a strategic prosecution, the DOJ will not prevail; but O'Dwyer will be forced into an expensive and life-changing defense to make an example of him, which is wrong.
I also think he will be extradited to the US, there's a small matter of international treaty involved here.
Concerned Americans would be better served by protesting the prosecution of O'Dwyer rather than the extradition.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Sorry for the language but what lobotomized slime ball signed into existence an environment where European citizens (actually UK citizen) can face extradition to the US?
I understand the EU makes this a little bit awkward, hence extradition inside the EU (and even there one of the requirements is that the crime exists in similar ways in both countries). But the normal thing has been always to keep your own citizen, and if the crime warrants the citizen is prosecuted at home. Neither Germany, nor Austria for example allow extradition of their own citizens, nor if the death penalty is a possibility. In both cases it's part of the constitution.
Well, in most civilized places citizenship implies protection from extradition.
And you cannot really commit a crime in country X if you are not there.
You can have my name, my city, province, and country, even my (spam-dedicated) e-mail address, and I'll definitely give a reason why I think the extradition is bullshit, but you're not getting my home address or postal code for a bloody Internet petition. Try again Jimmy Wales.
In the past 10 years, how many American nationals have been extradited to the UK or any other EU member state? For bonus points, how many of those were for non-violent crimes unrelated to terrorism?
due to the borderless nature of the internet, what this guy does in the UK most certainly has an impact on the media business in the USA
True but only because the US lets people in the UK connect to its network. If you don't like what people in the UK can do legally in our own country then you are free to refuse all network traffic from the UK. If you choose to accept it then you have to accept the consequences too. It's entirely your decision which you are free to make as you wish as a sovereign nation. The only time extradition should be allowed is when the crime was committed while the culprit was on US soil and then fled to try and avoid US justice - it doesn't matter what the crime is copyright, murder, speeding etc.
He's disseminating sitcoms and movies.
No, he's not - he's providing a space for other people to aggregate links to other locations which disseminate sitcoms and movies. There's a galaxy of difference.
It's not "ri-goddamn-diculous." Murderers have escaped to France, pedophiles to Poland, etc. Just because they're in another country doesn't mean they can escape justice.
If you honestly believe running a website is tantamount to murder and raping children, you must be one of those MAFIAA pudwhacks. It's the only reasonable explanation.
And again, this O'Dwyer case is a silly witch hunt. I'm more annoyed by the ./'ers ignorance.
Yea, you know what annoys me? People who come to Slashdot not to contribute to the discussion, but purely for the sake of bitching about what other people say on Slashdot. You're quite welcome to fuck off and save yourself the annoyance, I'm sure the rest of us will get along just fine without you.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
***
You cannot protect or increase the freedoms of your citizens if you make them subject to the laws of a less free country.
***
And yes, I think it is legitimate for the people of a democracy to expect their elected representatives to defend *and increase* the freedoms of the people.
It is also legitimate to punish them when they do not.
I will be voting for Scottish independence in 2014, not because of any economic or national pride bullshit, but because I think the UK as an institution has for a long time been a danger to and an enemy of liberty, and it has earned a constitutional death sentence.
-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
Reminds me of an interesting case in the 1970s in Australia. Edward Ward shot a fisherman on the Murray riverbank near Echuca, and the body ended up half in the water. He was found guilty of murder in Victoria. But because the boundary wasn't well defined (the river itself belonged to NSW), there was a drawn out legal battle that eventually ended up in the High Court having to define the boundary more precisely. Ward didn't get a reprieve though, because he was retried in NSW and still got life imprisonment.
Wow. So the UK are going to extradit somebody again? If they continue like this, there will soon be plenty of place on this island. Glad I am not british.