Slashdot Mirror
TVShack Founder Signs Deal Avoiding Extradition
another random user writes with news that the founder of TVShack probably won't be thrown into a U.S. prison for life. From the article: "Richard O'Dwyer, from Sheffield, is accused of breaking copyright laws. The US authorities claimed the 24-year-old's TVShack website hosted links to pirated films and TV programs. The High Court was told Mr O'Dwyer had signed a 'deferred prosecution' agreement which would require him paying a small sum of compensation. Mr O'Dwyer will travel to the US voluntarily in the next few weeks for the deal to be formally ratified, it is understood."
Looks like Jimbo going to bat for him generated a bit of bad press. As usual, the MPAA is not enthused. Different articles are reporting that his mother is the one traveling to the U.S. to finalize the deal.
But I personally wouldn't be travelling to "finalize a deal" in a foreign country, no you can just mail me the paper work.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This is how we know that our copyright system is completely out of control. Extradition over links?
Palm trees and 8
It's a trap! Don't do it!
Send a representative who isn't going to get arrested at the airport.
Looks like Jimbo going to bat for him generated a bit of bad press.
Not being intimately familiar with the story, I wondered who the 'Jimbo' in the summary was. I should have guessed it was he of the 'please give Wikipedia money' banners, Jimmy Wales. In fairness, there have been a couple of stories on /. about it, and it is in one of TFAs; but some context in the summary from the editors or submitter would have been nice. While I'm at it, The Guardian has some coverage too.
Here ends the obligatory grousing about the article summary.
If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
As it was explained to me, deferred prosecution is like a pro-active parole. They don't bring you to trial, but if you do anything illegal and they catch you within the period of the deferment, they bring the old charges back with both barrels.
This is a crafty way of neutralizing an activist. You keep them out of the media circus of a trial, but then you've got a sword of Damocles to hold over their heads. If they continue their activism, they face old and new charges. If they do not continue, they become irrelevant and end up working in some back room, coding websites for dubious startups.
It's a registered user, not an anonymous reader. another random user (2645241)
Seriously DO NOT TRUST THIS!
Why can't this simply be carried out at the US embassy in London?
Why do they want him to be physically present in the USA?
Also, this is the most disgusting use of the extradition "agreement" so far, much more so than the McKinnon case. The reason being is that what he did isn't even a crime in the UK. Well, perhas/probably not. The CPS decided not to bring a case because noone is sure. Apparently a "test case" is needed.
So apparently here not only do yu have to know the local law in more detail than even the government, you also have to know that even if you're not comitting a crime here you also have to know all the USA laws too just in case the government decides to hang you out to dry and try to extradite you for a crime that doesn't even exist!
At what point does ignorance of laws of a country you've never visited and never dones business in become a valid excuse?
At least this madness is possibly over.
But I certainly would not trust the USA authorities if I was him. If he can pay, then he can mail a cheque to the embassy. Anything else is way beyond the boundaries of trust.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There's using legitimate political means to agitate for change. I agree that this is usually legal in industrialized countries.
There's also pushing the limits by being a test case, which is usually neither legal or illegal. You're waiting for the courts to decide. In the meantime, you may be arrested and raped in jail.
It's a tough life, this activism stuff.
...can someone please remind me how much of my money is being wasted on this shit?
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
The "Jimbo" in the summary is Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia. I usually get shouted down for suggesting that summaries could do with a bit more context on occasion, but this is ridiculous.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I found an interesting assessment of this US-UK extradition pact:
It could be that what you're seeing is that the US, at five times bigger, is merely making more requests because it has more interests. The treaty may not be unfavorable at all.
You're reading my suggestion out of context, you're absolutely right that the example I gave was my own moral judgement, but it was also just an example of a possible option should a new treaty be agreed to replace this one.
However, if your implication is that the original treaty was meant to be for all and any laws then you are wrong. The original treaty was sold by citizens on both sides of the pond as being entirely about extradition of terror suspects, many of us complained at the time that the proposed treaty was too vague but we were simply told (on both sides) by our governments "trust us" - of course, we didn't have a choice anyway because they went ahead regardless using the post-9/11 anti-terrorism fear mongering as the justification.
This is why it's a problem, and this is why it's not right that it's being used for every law even those that aren't crimes in both countries - because we were explicitly told that that's not what it was for, both US and UK citizens alike. Again, I only gave the suggestion I did based on my own moral judgement as an example for any future replacement treaty as to what might then be deemed acceptable - that doesn't mean everyone else, including our two governments will agree, but again, it's irrelevant to what we have now which is being used in a way we were told it wouldn't be and it's currently the US that is abusing it beyond it's original intention- more fool our government for believing the vagueness of it wouldn't be abused like this.
"Among other things, extraditing him here would allow the court battle to rage and a decision be reached on what behavior is or is not legal."
I get that you want that, I really do, but using our citizens for it isn't the right thing to do. It's your country and your problem- it's something you can, and should sort out amongst yourselves. You don't need to extradite anyone from here to do it as that's simply an attempt to bring xenophobia in it so the US government can claim evil foreigners are stealing US jobs and so forth. Use a US citizen, there are plenty hosting similar sites and keep that out of it. It's also an attempt at fear mongering, which should have no place in legal process.