Slashdot Mirror
Home Office To Ignore Wikipedia Founder's Petition Against O'Dwyer Extradition
An anonymous reader writes "The Home Office has confirmed home secretary Theresa May will not block TVShack founder Richard O'Dwyer's U.S. extradition, despite widespread calls for her to do so."
It would appear the fate of the tvshack founder is now sealed.
So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited? Wouldn't that fall under persecution grounds for asylum? Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
Ah, one more small battle in the War on Youth. Let's see: cameras in the streets, ASBOs, patents that kill new competition, laws against drugs, laws against sharing, laws against resisting arrest, student loans, sugar-laden foods, credit card debt, loss of permanent jobs, the list goes on. The UK and USA lead the world in the War on Youth, which pits the old against the young. Extraditing a couple of "pirates" is just consistent with this theme.
Theresa May is from the Conservative Party, the UK's right wing major political party (I think this means something like Democrat in the USA?). Her party is very pro-USA in terms of where they take their political lead from and want to orient their geo-politics - as opposed to, say, a more pro-centrist/socialist European line. So I don't think it's too surprising that she'll be happy to do the US government a small favour on this one.
Some might say it's going too far to extradite UK citizens who are alleged to have broken a US law while in the UK, others might say it's pragmatic to work for closer ties with the world's largest super power when they come asking a favour (which is within English law: the Extradition Act of 2003).
Bet they don't extradite Bob Diamond for overseeing the fraud of vast amounts of money that may actually have done real damage to US citizens, never mind the UK and the rest of the world.
If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US for breaking US law outside the US while physically never setting foot on US soil, why don't we see people getting extradited to all sorts of countries for breaking their laws while sitting in our homes in our own countries?
Second, extradition is for serious crimes only. Why wasn't the request squashed as it's only related to a civil matter of copyright infringement, not a criminal offense?
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Be accused of copywrite infringement = UK extradite to USA
Be accused of rape = UK will NOT extradite to USA.
Umm excuse me but this just feels wrong.
As Dr. Ben Goldacre has just tweeted, "it's the little things like extradition at the behest of a corporation that make you worry the whole world is corrupt".
I think that ship may have sailed.
First, it was the case of Assange, and now this
The whole thing reads like as if the government of the United Kingdom has lowered itself to the level of being a servant of Uncle Sam
I always thought that, Great Britain, ...
- a place which gave birth to the charter of Magna Carta,
- a place where the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of round table
- a place where the Bard (William Shakespeare) produced his world famous plays
... would be proud of itself
... would take its own national sovereignty very seriously
... would never kow tow to anyone, for any reason ...
After witnessing what transpired in both cases, I have to admit, that I was wrong
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If the mechanism is irrelevant, why are they not equally culpable?
Because intent matters.
Did TV shack have substantial genuine use that did not infringe copyright? Perhaps but this is something that needs to be established in court. The web browser and Windows clearly do have non infringing uses.
Congratulation, media industries : you clearly made your point : innovation in media content distribution will not be tolerated, even if it is done according to the laws.
If you were not already boycotting the people behind this, I think you can begin now.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
The OP was right: the Democrat is right wing in most of the rest of the world, the Republican are Extreme Right wing.
That's because the US was formed by the "radicals" of the 1700's-1800's. The Founders were the OWS of their time. They deliberately chose to avoid the type of central-authority-heavy types of government they were familiar with in Europe that severely restricted individual freedom and kept people mostly restricted to their own socio-economic class, and came at the idea of a central government as simply a necessary evil that should be given only those powers and control over only enough wealth to carry out the bare functions of a national government, and leaving most all other governing to the States and local authorities in order to promote a diverse system where one can find a place that generally governs in a way to suit a particular individual or group.
This totally different outlook caused America to be the place and the culture that so many people around the world wanted to be like and/or immigrate to and become part of for so many decades.
So, of course, Europeans would see the US political landscape as extremist. It is. Or, at least, it was.
Not so much anymore.
More's the pity, too.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
While the modern conservatives believe that a central government should be given enough power to carry out only the bare functions of a national government... except for where drugs are concerned. And banning gay marriage. And regulation of pornography. And broadcast indecency. And funding of abstinance-only programs. And endorsing Christian religion through large taxpayer-funded displays and monuments. And restricting abortion. And about a thousand other things. The social conservatives started drowning out the political conservatives a long time ago.
I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another. I mean why the hell should i shell out money to build a fricking DVR or add extra drives so my PC can do it when i can just use the net to find a show i missed and watch it whenever?
and I thought the whole point of the Betamax ruling was if something had a non infringing use even if others used it differently it couldn't just be banned outright? or did the cartels get that one tossed when i wasn't looking?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another.
If you did this, you were infringing copyright. Perhaps this is a fair use exception, that's a potential defence, and until it's established in court as an exception, there's adequate evidence for a trial. Who knows; perhaps this case will form an important legal precedent.
I mean why the hell should i shell out money to build a fricking DVR or add extra drives so my PC can do it when i can just use the net to find a show i missed and watch it whenever?
Nobody's forcing you to do that.
and I thought the whole point of the Betamax ruling was if something had a non infringing use even if others used it differently it couldn't just be banned outright? or did the cartels get that one tossed when i wasn't looking?
The betamax ruling was that time shifting was not copyright infringement.
Current UK Prime Minister David Cameron came out in support of McKinnon before he was elected
I've highlighted the most pertinent words.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
England never listens to Wales.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Theresa May has not said "NO" and indeed has not responded at all. The report quotes a press release that was issued before my petition was even launched. There has been no response to me at all so far.
Every signature counts as they are clearly feeling the pressure.
Jimmy Wales
Wikia
I agree with most of your argument, but OWS? Seriously? I am very interested where you got the impression that OWS was dedicated to individual freedom. OWS primary message is focused on class warfare, in direct contradiction to individual freedom.
Yeah, well, you've got a point.
I guess I was trying to point out something contemporary young people today are familiar with protest-wise, and make a case that the founders were the "radicals" of their day.
These days you're called radical if you simply advocate for the government to stick to the deal that's in writing (the US Constitution) and for more individual freedom, instead of some type of collectivist view that has government making choices for you.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.