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
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
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.
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
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.