UK student faces extradition to US after piracy case ruling A 23-year-old student is facing extradition to the US, and possibly five years in a federal prison, after the British courts ruled he should face charges of copyright infringement for linking to websites hosting pirated content. Richard O’Dwyer, a computer science student at Sheffield Hallam University who had never even left …
I am in the US. I don't particularly like the way we are going in regards to the way my supposed government is treating an individual. We are supposed to be founded on individual rights over the government ( at least if those rights are protected by the constitution). The Brits need to grow some balls and tell the US to bug off. If it isn't a crime over there then you shouldn't be extraditing one of your citizens over here. Tell that judge to go to hell.
They're not really RIGHTS if they're written on paper and can be taken away with the stroke of a pen under secret sessions of Parliament/Senate/Etc.
They are only really temporary privileges assigned and maintained by each successive ruling government - as appointed by financial lobbying interests.
In my youth I knew people (seniors) who had been scooped up into several different racially(sic) segregated internment camps. Germans, Ukranians, Japanese, and even some select Jewish people were among the financial and physical victims of warfare within Canada. We even shipped some of them directly from the UK and mainland Europe on our own dime as a favour.
Yeah, rights.
What if he'd been a priacy researcher, and his website was full of the same links, but as examples of people illegally streaming TV? Would he have been extradited then? After all, he's still linking to filthy pirate scumbags, and we all know that PIRACY IS TERRORISM, at least according to the hilariously stupid unskippable warnings on my BDs.
If it had been research, there is an exemption from copyright.
14.3 The UK recognises a number of 'special cases', of which for present purposes the most important are fair dealing for purposes of research, private study, research, criticism and review. Later reproduction of the copyright work in these contexts does not interfere with the ordinary publication of the material, and does not lead to an unreasonable loss of remuneration for the author.
Where is his dissertation: Research in to effective methods of video distribution.
I didn't see his site, did he criticise or review any of the films/programmes?
I use Google Docs and Amazon Web Services constantly for all sorts of personal and business stuff. I treat them as if they were a local extension to my computing environment ... (I live in the UK).
Makes you wonder if using these services in such a naive manner is a really bad idea ...
After all I'm sure my data is stored in the U.S. and therefore de facto accessible by US government agents ....
"I use Google Docs and Amazon Web Services constantly for all sorts of personal and business stuff. . . .After all I'm sure my data is stored in the U.S. and therefore de facto accessible by US government agents ..."
Here's the "wider implications" of your post: If you use any kind of cloud for anything, or if you use Google for anything, then no matter *where* the servers are based and no matter *where* you yourself are located, your idea of having *any* privacy at all strongly "implies" that you are an idiot.
I try not to use American servers for anything (I don't mean illegal stuff, I mean everything), to the fullest practical extent that I am able to avoid them.
I know that being in a different part of the Cloud - on a French server or an Australian server, or whatever - does not automatically give me more anonymity, does not enhance my privacy, and does not make me immune to potential court orders (there are ways to do that, but they are for the most part unrelated to server nationality). That is not the point. For me it is a political statement as well as a declaration about user rights.
This post has been deleted by its author
Linking to illegal content is illegal, so they seem to be arguing.
How about if I say "GET ALL YOUR MOVIES AND MUSIC FROM http://thepiratebay.org/"
Then I'd be linking to a site, that houses downloads, that link to illegal content. Is that enough abstraction to make it ok? Being as it's the Internet, and how links work, if you go far enough down that road, I can probably say Disney links to animal porn Not directly, but Disney links to x which links to y which links to z.... which links to animalfarm.xxx
Yes, of course it is, otherwise would there be anarchy and chaos.
I suppose there is nothing else for it, other than to flourish that hoary ace card ........ the Duchess of York Commoner Defence ......... with grounds in national security, social order and other essential interests expounded to fully justify extradition request non-compliance ...... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-duchess-and-her-diplomatic-difficulty-6289042.html
Such as can be easily perceived of as crass ignorant and arrogant international bullying, by both painfully sad and reassuringly mad and traditionally pathetic and fully self-delusional and self-serving dysfunctional bullies, are just so not of this time anymore, and are they in for an awesome shock as their powers of coersion with artificially generated conflict management are stripped away and extraordinarily rendered to have no future intellectual base support or AI Beta ProgramMING Plans, which is double whammy of unfolding despair to expect and experience is expanding at an exponential rate ......... with the inevitable runaway train fate, the destiny of all its passengers and goods.
By far the larger majority of posters here seem to have forgotten that it is alleged that he was breaking international copyright law.
"But they were only links" people will cry.
Well, I don't like international copyright law as it currently stands, nor the UK<>US extradition treaty, but they are laws and it is alleged that he broke them. No amount of visceral comments will make any difference to that.
People can shout and scream all they want, but he is accused of breaking the law and he needs to defend himself against those charges.
I hope he is able to get one or more laws reviewed and possibly clarified, but it is a high stakes game to play when your personal freedom is on the line
.....and there is no suggestion that he undertook the whole venture with any goal other than to make money, so playing the knight in shining amour of the "free internet" now is disingenuous to say the least.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS A CIVIL OFFENCE.
You do not go to jail for a civil offence, you are usually fined or told to be good. (You can go to jail if you don't pay your fine).
As usual, this is about ultra greed, even in a case where they suggest they lost a lot and where their cost of recovering it will be covered by damages, they can't be arsed to use the correct methods available to them. Take him to court under a civil offence, ask for the $280,000 he supposedly earned, extra damages and an order so he can't do it again. This stops him, puts off others and helps your case.
But no, use a procedure put in place to fight terrorism (yeh sure...) to extradite him and prosecute under your laws of another country, with the help of ******* court systems and ****** judges, put in place by ******* government for the benefit of themselves and the other 1 percent.
They want the 99 percent to pay for the costs of them protecting their (extended period) copyrighted stuff, while you will have to pay yourself if you loose anything, such as big media using your copyrighted photographs without permission.
I hope it's not a hot summer in August next year.
In the UK it may be a civil offence. An offence the accused clearly admitted to given how he modified his second website to deliberately piss off those involved in enforcing the law.
However, the UK has signed *BINDING INTERNATIONAL TREATIES* with regard to copyright enforcement that work *across* national borders.
Extradition exists to ensure those who break the law of a nation do not get off scott free by simply moving elsewhere. The internet (and telephony in general) has confused matters somewhat as it has been possible to hack into a US-based computer from the UK since the birth of the modem. (Granted, it was expensive, but only if you didn't know how to phreak the phone system.)
Extradition now covers the issue of someone breaking the law in another country through electronic means alone. While copyright infringement is considered a civil law issue in the UK, it is NOT considered such in the US. As the UK and the US have a *BINDING INTERNATIONAL TREATY* ensuring someone accused of breaking a US law while in the UK can be extradited, the judiciary have little option but to accede to the US' requests.
Even so, I have no idea why so many people are leaping to the defence of someone who very clearly built a CURATED website filled with links to ILLEGAL content. (No, he wasn't hosting it, but so what? It still violates the UK's *civil* laws, and the US' *criminal* laws. And the plaintiffs are based in the US, so guess which laws apply? Hint: not the UK's.)
Also: fuck the 99%.
Seriously. It's not as if they haven't had plenty of opportunities to right "wrongs". They're called "elections".
Either vote for people you actually believe in, or go stand for election yourself. YOUR government is YOUR responsibility. That's what "democracy" MEANS, for fuck's sake! You don't get to just piss and moan and do precisely fuck all about their behaviour and then demand the moral high ground.
Whatever you may think about the US-UK extradition treaty, it was YOUR government that signed it. If you don't like it, complain to your MPs and make damned sure they get suitably punished (by not being reelected) if they fail to do as you demand. If you can't even be arced to do that much and limit yourself to signing the occasional (online) petition, you have only yourselves to blame.
Every society gets the government it deserves. If your government is so bad, perhaps you need to look long and hard at your society.
> An offence the accused clearly admitted to
He did no such thing.
"Fuck the police" does not mean the same thing as "I'm bang to rights and no mistake, guv'ner".
> the UK has signed *BINDING INTERNATIONAL TREATIES* with regard
> to copyright enforcement that work *across* national borders.
And which treaty covers the act of linking to someone else's website? Which section?
> I have no idea why so many people are leaping to the defence of someone
It's very simple: this is a clear and serious abuse of legislation brought in to tackle terrorism. This guy is not a terrorist, so this legislation should not be used.
We don't give a toss about the guy himself. We care deeply about the removal of the presumption of innocence.
> It still violates the UK's *civil* laws
Does it? Which law, which section?
> And the plaintiffs are based in the US, so guess which laws apply?
That's very interesting. So when are you going to start extraditing people to Saudi Arabia? An awful lot of yanks have broken Saudi laws...
> Either vote for people you actually believe in, or go stand for election yourself.
You're going to pay for that, are you?
Take a look at UK election legislation. It really isn't as simple as deciding to stand, and just going and doing it. You need to do quite a bit before you can even get your name on the ballot paper.
> That's what "democracy" MEANS, for fuck's sake!
We do not have a true democracy. And nor do you.
Vic.
You seem to be so positive that this guy has committed an offence under UK law, so please tell me exactly what laws he has broken?
In the UK we have something called the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). In their own words, "The role of the Service is to prosecute cases firmly, fairly and effectively when there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and when it is in the public interest to do so."
The CPS investigated this case and decided that there was no case to answer to (or there was not a realistic prospect of a conviction under UK law). So if our Governmental prosecution service don't believe that he has broken a UK law (or believe there is no chance of conviction), why in hell is he being extradited?
The alleged crime took place in the UK, the content was not hosted in the US (or even on his site!) and if the CPS findings are anything to go by, he has not broken any UK laws. If the MPAA, RIAA etc. want to prosecute they should bring a civil action in a UK court, not bend a treaty designed to counter terrorism to protect their profits.
Believe it or not, it is not illegal to make money and not be an American.
Really?
It cost's £170,000 to build a place for each prisoner.
It costs between £60,000 and £215,00 for secure accommodation if the 'pirate' is under 18.
It costs £45,000 to sentence someone to prison in crown court .
It costs £37,500 to keep an adult in prison for a year.
All this because the media industry doesn't want to take 'pirates' to court, but wants you to do so and pay for it instead of them.
You are a fool or American, where they have 2.3M in prison and where they make law abiding Americans redundant and give their jobs to prisoners on 23cents an hour.
Highly paid defence works were laid off so prisoners could make parts for vehicles and weapons used in Afghanistan! Stirbacks foods are packaged by them, the majority of US white goods are made by them and all the while while 13.1M Americans are unemployed.
Why not make prisoners slaves? They willingly chose to violate law so now they can earn their freedom back after 10-20 years of slavery. There is no God given right to violate law or need to treat criminals with kid gloves. You get what you earn in this life, not what you chose to steal.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
