7 ms·
British student may be extradited to US on copyright charges
- singular 15y agoQuite despicable. Potentially ruining somebody's life because of alleged, highly questionable, loss of profit. I wonder what would have happened had a smaller country made the same request.
- mjwalshe 15y agoWell some European countries have had use the European arrest people for sealing a sheep in poland.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jcampbell1 15y ago"why wouldn't US citizens be able to be extradited to Thailand on charges of disrespecting the king or to China for undermining the government by being critical of it?" This sounds like a clever point, but really isn't. Extradition requires that the crime is also a crime under the local laws. Which is why Swiss Bankers would never be extradited to the US for tax evasion, and why Americans would never be extradited to Thailand for making fun on the King. I don't think copyright infringement should warrant extradition, but I don't have a good reason why I hold that belief.
- ErrantX 15y agoThis sounds like a clever point, but really isn't. Extradition requires that the crime is also a crime under the local laws. The argument is being made (quite rightly I think) is that what he did was not illegal under British law. So perhaps it is a good comparison :)
- jcampbell1 15y agoIf he committed no crime under British laws, I guarantee he would not have been eligible for extradition. The article is so thin on substance that it is hard to formulate an intelligent opinion on the matter. Edit: I just skimmed the PDF, and the kid argued that he shouldn't be extradited for three reasons: 1) Not illegal in both countries 2) US copyright punishment is "unjust or oppressive" 3) An extradition would be "disproportionate" relative to the crime. I agree with points #2 and #3, but not #1. I think #3 is the strongest argument. Copyright infringement is not a severe enough impediment to other's natural freedoms to merit sending a citizen to a foreign country to face charges.
- ErrantX 15y agoAbsolutely. In this case I think it is possible to argue (rather than it being cut and dried) about the legality in the UK - at least to a reasonable degree. If the judge decides it is then, fine, that's what he rules :) I agree; #3 is the most compelling. If anything it's the same reason the CPS declined a UK prosecution (because to do so would be disproportionate).
- jcampbell1 15y agoThis whole thing is nuts. A case where there are proportionally as many UK victims as US victims, but the UK declines to prosecute should not be eligible for extradition. It does't pass a stink test, nor a "disproportionate" test.
- arethuza 15y ago"Extradition requires that the crime is also a crime under the local laws." We should perhaps also require that the likely punishment be comparable.
- linuxhansl 15y agoThat point ignores that in the UK he would receive a reasonable fine, whereas in the US he will possibly be fined $150.000 per infringement or face a prison sentence.
- nhangen 15y agoI never thought I'd see the day where I'd become embarrassed of my country, but we're moving perilously close to that, in more ways than one.
- maalox 15y agoIf he was Muslim, the US would probably ship him to straight to gitmo. I'm only half joking.
- sirwanqutbi 15y agoThe student has never been to America in all his life, yet the laws in Britain has allowed America to grab anyone from anywhere in Britain, and try them.
- dwightgunning 15y agoDo you get a visa after you serve the term?
- dguaraglia 15y agoSurely not! That's the most retarded part of it all: people who can, and want, to contribute to the US economy are not welcome in. Now, someone who pissed off some small-time mafioso running some shitty movie studio? Oh yeah! Bring them in, try them here and spend a ridiculous amount of money and effort to punish them! Tax payers should be breaking things over stuff like this.
- kevingadd 15y agoHe should consider himself lucky that an attack drone hasn't come into the equation yet.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jakeonthemove 15y agoFree ticket to the US + a possible free vacation = win! :-) But seriously, if he gets extradited, he still needs to be tried by a US court, where a judge may decide that this is all too crazy and drop the charges. Best of all, everything (including the prison, which is pretty expensive) is paid by US taxpayers - who's the sucker now?
- smokeyj 15y agoHow exactly do we hold people in other countries accountable for US law? Isn't this US imperialist bullshit getting a little out of hand? And for what, to uphold the Entertainment Guild. Next thing you know we're gonna be extradited to Britain for insulting the queen.
- njs12345 15y agoThis case is a bit unusual; if you read the judge's findings (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...) extradition depends on the fact that the judge is satisfied that his conduct is also an offense under UK law. It's quite similar to what happened to the NatWest Three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three).
- lambada 15y agoThe distinction with the NatWest Three though is that the Enron situation meant that there were grounds for the US to have a stake in the prosecution. I can't see in this case how the US have a stake. I realise that having such a stake is not required by the Treaty, but perhaps it should be?
- njs12345 15y agoI'd agree that the US's claim to a stake in the NatWest Three case is probably more legitimate. Of course, TVShack had a lot of commercial activity with US advertisers, but doesn't seem like it would be difficult to establish this in a UK court. The forum clause, which was passed by both Houses, would require such a stake, but it hasn't been implemented by either the last government or the current one, apparently because it breaks the treaty we signed with the US which led to the act in the first place. A shame, because it looks eminently sensible to me: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/83A http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/83A
- potatolicious 15y agoSo... urge the Brits to prosecute. A violation of US law, committed outside of the USA, by a non-American, is none of the USA's business. Since it's illegal in Britain also, would it not make more sense (and be way less sketchy) to prosecute the guy in Britain?
- qqqqqq 15y agoI hope that the appeal _does_ go through. This is a dangerous precedent for our legal system to be setting. I do not like the idea that US law can be applied to me here in the UK despite having no business in the US itself.
- reubenyeah 15y agoIt makes me furious that this is considered under US jurisdiction for a crime that should really be a civil matter, if anything at all. We should only allow extradition of our citizens for serious crimes, committed in other countries when they have fled justice.
- antr 15y agoNext: US Government to extradite Chinese dissidents for saying bad things about the Chinese Government on the internet. All of this is just wrong.
- thebooktocome 15y agoExcept saying bad things about the Chinese Government isn't illegal in the US. Yet. But still, you've misread the original post.
- trevelyan 15y agoNot exactly true. In exchange for their support in the War on Terror, China managed to get a number of vaguely-defined domestic opposition groups (particularly ethnic separatist ones) listed as international terrorist organizations. I'm not sure the point at which anti-China activities would fall under the purview of anti-terrorism laws, but I'm not sure the issue is as clean-cut as you think. A Chinese individual who sent money back home or canvassed for support might get nailed on quite a few grounds assuming the United States was willing to be consistent in applying its policies regarding Islamic terrorism to anti-China groups.
- thebooktocome 15y agoOh wow. Okay. But I still think > A Chinese individual who sent money back home or canvassed for support might get nailed on quite a few grounds assuming the United States was willing to be consistent in applying its policies regarding Islamic terrorism to anti-China groups. seems a bit unlikely. Has it happened yet?
- antr 15y agoMisread? All I'm saying is that the extradition is just wrong. You don't need to be patronising.
- fasouto 15y agoThe British goverment has drop its pants. Dangerous precedent... You have to obey British and USA laws.
- esrauch 15y agoHis lawyer tried to argue that his offense was not illegal under UK law, among other arguments including that it was disproportionate to his crime to be extradited. The ruling spends several pages discussing it, and the ruling concludes "Accordingly in my judgement I am satisfied the conduct alleged in the instant request meets the dual criminality test and would be an offence in this jurisdiction." In other words, he only has to obey British law. The only reason the ruling was in favor of extradition was because the crime he committed is also a British law punishable by at least one year.
- nagrom 15y agoHowever, he hasn't been prosecuted in the UK. Why not? There's a saying that, if your dog must be shot, it is best to do it yourself. Farming it out makes the act worse, not better. If a UK citizen is suspected of committing a crime in the UK, (s)he must be tried in the UK under UK law and, if found guilty, punished in the UK. The suspect should never, ever be extradited to a foreign power and punished by them.
- esrauch 15y agoIt isn't so trivial to say where the crime is committed when the internet is related. He is being prosecuted for facilitating copyright in the United States. The people who committed actual copyright infringement in this case were in the US when they committed their crime, and he was facilitating them remotely. The issue is being argued the same as if someone was selling pirated CDs in the US, and he was facilitating those people and making money doing so in the UK. Regardless of how you feel about the nature of digital copyright law, it's really not quite as ridiculous as you are making it sound.
- 15y ago
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- nirvana 15y agoIf he'd travelled to the USA and committed a crime, that would be one thing. But he's a British citizen in Britian. He's not subject to US laws, he's subject to British laws. If the British government can't be bothered to protect its citizens against this kind of overreach, isn't the british government failing at the most basic purpose of a government-- to protect people's rights? The idea that a .NET or .COM domain name subjects you to US laws is asinine beyond belief. The only degree to which this is true is domain disputes or the management of that domain name. Nothing else. A big part of the problem here is that US judges have become errand boys for the federal government, and are inclined to let federal prosecutors get away with asinine arguments like the claim that ".COM means US presence.".
- chimeracoder 15y ago> The idea that a .NET or .COM domain name subjects you to US laws is asinine beyond belief. The only degree to which this is true is domain disputes or the management of that domain name. Nothing else. Especially since .com is supposed to be reserved for international use, whereas .us is intended for US-based (or US-targeted) companies. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two companies that ever used .us: Delicious and Grouphug (and the former only because of the creative spelling).
- Go123 15y agoI think you mean the problem is that prosecutors have become errand boys for the entertainment media industry (and also the software industry, e.g. Adobe and MS). Copyright is meant to be enforced by the copyright holder, i.e., by private industry, not by the federal government. The government is enforcing private rights. They are meddling in the business world.
- jcampbell1 15y agoI don't mean to be rude, but how is this the top voted comment? Extradition exists for a reason, and this comment lacks a serious depth of thinking and belongs on reddit. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition Form arguments based on the restrictions outlined.
- xinsight 15y agoSo people can be jailed for copyright violations now? What happens to a corporation when it violates copyright? Seems we should all become corporations simply as insurance.
- tedunangst 15y agoNow? Criminal copyright infringement possibly lead to prison time since long before the interwebs existed.
- colin-de-vries 15y agoThere is a Stop Extradition Fair UK Trial for Richard O'Dwyer" petition. http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk-trial-for-richard-o-dwyer/sign.html http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk...
- teamonkey 15y agoAnd an e-petition for the amendment of the extradition treaty with the US. https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22467 https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22467
- patrickod 15y agoIt's one thing to watch from a distance as the US legal system becomes more and more unnerving. It's completely different to think that even in your own home nation such as the UK that US law can cross international boarders and ensnare you. This is wrong.
- mvip 15y agoSo true: "[T]his sets a terrible precedent. If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US because of the content of their web pages hosted in the UK, why wouldn't US citizens be able to be extradited to Thailand on charges of disrespecting the king or to China for undermining the government by being critical of it? To even press this case at all shows either a fundamental undervaluing of the freedom of speech of everyone, including US citizens, or, more likely, a belief in the most fundamental of American hypocrisies: the idea that the rules that the US applies to the rest of the world shouldn't be applied to the US."
- daimyoyo 15y agoI had mentioned this before but I think it bears repeating. This case was the last straw for me. Aweful movies and bad theatergoing experience aside, I refuse to patronize an industry that targets people across international borders simply for having links on a website. And I used to watch some 8-10 movies monthly so I hope this case is worth it to the MPAA. Goodbye, hollywood. Your greed condemns you.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- linuxhansl 15y ago<rant> I hereby demand that all US citizens that violated the law of any other country to be allow to be extradited into said country. And also congratulation to "great" Britain to once again confirm that it is nothing more than the US' lap dog. </rant>
- noonespecial 15y agoFor their next trick, the IRS will be sending tax bills the to British citizens... I hear dumping a ship-load of tea into a local harbor is a good way to make your point about this sort of thing.
- mjwalshe 15y agoIf you own american stock in the UK you have to register with the IRS (W-8BEN form) to make sure you don't get taxed twice on dividends.
- patrickod 15y agoAm I not mistaken that if you hold dual-citizenship or even a Green Card but are not living and declaring income in the US that the IRS still expects you to pay tax in the US?
- gerggerg 15y agoEssential we want to ruin his life over nothing. The net impact of TVshack was certainly not enough to warrant extradition of a foreign citizen and sending him to federal prison. Unfortunately, its impact may have even been positive; encouraging people to be more engaged with new media releases. We're behaving like true bullies on this case and I think it does a lot to tarnish the idea that the US is a resilient country of civilized humans. It's honestly quite shameful.
- KaeseEs 15y agoThe extradition treaty between the US and the UK would seem to be bizarre as hell. On the one hand, a person who hacks into US government computer systems isn't extradited, and on the other hand a minor and specious copyright violation does merit extradition.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- peblos 15y agoGary McKinnon looks all but set to be deported. It's just an incredibly long process of appeals that has stopped it thus far
- BjoernKW 15y agoI'm pretty sure extraditing British citizens to the US for prosecution is illegal. British citizens are subject to British law and British law alone. Hence, he can be prosecuted in a British court and if sentenced he might be extradited to the US but there's no way he can be legally extradited before proven guilty.