6 ms·

This 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.ju

This 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 ago
The 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 ago
  I'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 ago
So... 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?
- tankenmate 15y ago
  The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case and decided it wouldn't be in the public interest to proceed with a case. They decided there wasn't enough evidence, indeed the Crown Prosecution Service has been denied access to the evidence that was supposedly used to extradite him.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    > The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case and decided it wouldn't be in the public interest to proceed with a case. If it's not in the public interest to do it in the UK, why is it in the public interest to do it in the USA? It seems to me that the judge is contradicting the crown here, which seems a bit off, even if you assume it's his right to do so.
    - ErrantX 15y ago
      The CPS != "the crown" (at least not today). The CPS is the UK equivalent of the DA's office. It's a political bureaucracy (I could literally complain for days about how much of a bureaucracy it is, but you'd get bored of me :)). The judge, theoretically, is more of the expert on the law and whether it should be tried - but the CPS have to decide to bring the prosecution to him/her. Which is why you regularly get cases that should be seen in court, but which a suit decides is statistically unlikely to prosecute favourably.
      - scottdw2 15y ago
        Don't English and Welsh law allow for private prosecution of crimes in cases where the CPS declines to prosecute? Wouldn't that provide an avenue of relief to the copy right holders without removing a UK citizen from the jurisdiction of UK laws? This whole thing seems troubling to me. How many US Internet companies collect VAT from sales to folks in the UK? Would that make founders of a US startup subject to extradition to the UK for tax avoidance? What if it's just a tiny DBA "company" with no liability shield? The whole thing smells rotten to me!
    - 15y ago
jrmg 15y ago
I would really urge everyone to read the above linked (by njs12345) PDF of the ruling. It's written very clearly in the main, and, for me, really threw a lot of light on what this case meant (and, I admit, changed my opinion somewhat - the media reports seem to be really diminishing how commercial the operation was). However you expect you'll react though, it's well worth a read to get the whole story.
lucaspiller 15y ago
The case mentioned "R v Rock & Overton at the Crown Court in Gloucester (T20097013)" (http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/legal/reginavsrockoverton.pdf http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/legal/reginavsrockoverton.pd...) is interesting. It discusses the site TV Links which did exactly the same as TV Shack, the only difference however appears to be that TV Links attempted to remove any links reported as copyright infringing (a la DMCA protection). A few interesting snippets: "In summary Mr Bridge contented that the prosecution of the defendants amounted to a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Mr Overton's right to freedom of speech. He said that The Guardian newspaper had carried an article dated 24th February 2007 describing TV-Links in detail. TV-Links did no more than any other TV listings site or indeed The Guardian newspaper. TV-Links merely expressed the fact that films could be accessed on other host sites." "It was argued that TV-Links was in a similar position to Google or YouTube in that all of the material could be accessed by persons who used TV-Links could also be accessed through their use of those sites as well. ... The essential difference between TV-Links and sites that directly provide pirated material in breach of copyright (it was not suggested that Google or YouTube fall into this category) is that those other sites store the illegal material and make it available to users of the site. TV-Links did not store any such material. It was simply a sign post pointing the way to where such material could be accessed by those members of the public who chose to do so." "The prosecutor in this case, he said, had a cast iron case against the viewers of the material accessed by the use of the TV-Links site and against the broadcasters of that material. He did not however have a case against the middle man, namely the defendants and who had not made available this material. The defendants themselves were not making available the copyright material."

lambada 15y ago

The 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 ago
I'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 ago

So... 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?

tankenmate 15y ago
The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case and decided it wouldn't be in the public interest to proceed with a case. They decided there wasn't enough evidence, indeed the Crown Prosecution Service has been denied access to the evidence that was supposedly used to extradite him.
- Natsu 15y ago
  > The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case and decided it wouldn't be in the public interest to proceed with a case. If it's not in the public interest to do it in the UK, why is it in the public interest to do it in the USA? It seems to me that the judge is contradicting the crown here, which seems a bit off, even if you assume it's his right to do so.
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    The CPS != "the crown" (at least not today). The CPS is the UK equivalent of the DA's office. It's a political bureaucracy (I could literally complain for days about how much of a bureaucracy it is, but you'd get bored of me :)). The judge, theoretically, is more of the expert on the law and whether it should be tried - but the CPS have to decide to bring the prosecution to him/her. Which is why you regularly get cases that should be seen in court, but which a suit decides is statistically unlikely to prosecute favourably.
    - scottdw2 15y ago
      Don't English and Welsh law allow for private prosecution of crimes in cases where the CPS declines to prosecute? Wouldn't that provide an avenue of relief to the copy right holders without removing a UK citizen from the jurisdiction of UK laws? This whole thing seems troubling to me. How many US Internet companies collect VAT from sales to folks in the UK? Would that make founders of a US startup subject to extradition to the UK for tax avoidance? What if it's just a tiny DBA "company" with no liability shield? The whole thing smells rotten to me!
  - 15y ago

jrmg 15y ago

I would really urge everyone to read the above linked (by njs12345) PDF of the ruling. It's written very clearly in the main, and, for me, really threw a lot of light on what this case meant (and, I admit, changed my opinion somewhat - the media reports seem to be really diminishing how commercial the operation was). However you expect you'll react though, it's well worth a read to get the whole story.

lucaspiller 15y ago

The case mentioned "R v Rock & Overton at the Crown Court in Gloucester (T20097013)" (http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/legal/reginavsrockoverton.pdf http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/legal/reginavsrockoverton.pd...) is interesting. It discusses the site TV Links which did exactly the same as TV Shack, the only difference however appears to be that TV Links attempted to remove any links reported as copyright infringing (a la DMCA protection). A few interesting snippets: "In summary Mr Bridge contented that the prosecution of the defendants amounted to a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Mr Overton's right to freedom of speech. He said that The Guardian newspaper had carried an article dated 24th February 2007 describing TV-Links in detail. TV-Links did no more than any other TV listings site or indeed The Guardian newspaper. TV-Links merely expressed the fact that films could be accessed on other host sites." "It was argued that TV-Links was in a similar position to Google or YouTube in that all of the material could be accessed by persons who used TV-Links could also be accessed through their use of those sites as well. ... The essential difference between TV-Links and sites that directly provide pirated material in breach of copyright (it was not suggested that Google or YouTube fall into this category) is that those other sites store the illegal material and make it available to users of the site. TV-Links did not store any such material. It was simply a sign post pointing the way to where such material could be accessed by those members of the public who chose to do so." "The prosecutor in this case, he said, had a cast iron case against the viewers of the material accessed by the use of the TV-Links site and against the broadcasters of that material. He did not however have a case against the middle man, namely the defendants and who had not made available this material. The defendants themselves were not making available the copyright material."