6 ms·

The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. It is however strange that he's bei

The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. It is however strange that he's being extradited and I generally oppose individuals "being made an example of". I'd much prefer he go through the UK system than the US.

dav-id 15y ago
If I recall correctly he didnt break any laws in the UK.
- mrkmcknz 15y ago
  Correct because in the UK members of parliament are not elected to represent the complete morons at the MPAA and RIAA.
- andylei 15y ago
  that's not what the judge thought. from the article in the telegraph: > The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law > However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument
  - grecy 15y ago
    I read that to mean the judge is not saying he broke British laws, just that not breaking British laws is not a valid argument.
    - andylei 15y ago
      i don't think your reading is correct. one of the basic principles of extradition agreements is that the law broken has to apply in both countries
smokeyj 15y ago
> The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. Sounds like an entrepreneur to me.
k-mcgrady 15y ago
Sure he made a lot of money doing it but he just posted links. How is this different from Google (or any other search engine)?
- forrestthewoods 15y ago
  Are you actually asking or is it rhetorical? Search engines contain automatic references to, roughly speaking, the entire internet (minus explicitly blocked content). The search engine is used to obtain a vast amount of knowledge by a vast number of people. It will link copyright infringing material at a low percentage rate. TVShack on the other hand is used exclusively to link to copyright infringing material. It's used for a very singular purpose at a near one hundred percent rate. IANAL in any country so I can't say what, if any, legal difference exists. Practically speaking the difference is rather straight forward. One entity (TVShack) exists for the exclusive purpose of linking copyrighted material and one does not.
  - k-mcgrady 15y ago
    The difference between the two is obvious but at a very basic level all TVShack did was provide links. I can't see why linking to content should ever be illegal. And I think this is another case where they are just trying to make an example of someone. If they actually cared about copyright infringement they would go after the companies hosting the content he linked to.
  - why-el 15y ago
    So if he added a couple of links to free movies would that have saved him? I dont see your argument here.
- joering2 15y ago
  it is different in those ways: * google has established business with presence in most countries where it does pay a huge tax. therefore this fact that they feed a government/police system alone makes them less vulnerable for through investigations * google has tens of thousands employees and it would be very difficult to prosecute an individual. Given 150 engineers worked on google search engine to display links, would you want to see all of them behind bars? that would be bigger trial than Nurnberg's. I dont agree with any of what I wrote. But unfortunately thats just the way it is -- to big to prosecute :( Basically there is no difference between Google and any other web to search and find links. Try to type any movie name using dot instead of space and add "torrent" [1] [1] https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=vanilla.sky+torrent&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=vanilla.sky+torrent https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=vanilla.sky+torrent&...
grecy 15y ago
> The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. In your country. FTFY.

dav-id 15y ago

If I recall correctly he didnt break any laws in the UK.

mrkmcknz 15y ago
Correct because in the UK members of parliament are not elected to represent the complete morons at the MPAA and RIAA.
andylei 15y ago
that's not what the judge thought. from the article in the telegraph: > The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law > However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument
- grecy 15y ago
  I read that to mean the judge is not saying he broke British laws, just that not breaking British laws is not a valid argument.
  - andylei 15y ago
    i don't think your reading is correct. one of the basic principles of extradition agreements is that the law broken has to apply in both countries

smokeyj 15y ago

> The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. Sounds like an entrepreneur to me.

k-mcgrady 15y ago

Sure he made a lot of money doing it but he just posted links. How is this different from Google (or any other search engine)?

forrestthewoods 15y ago
Are you actually asking or is it rhetorical? Search engines contain automatic references to, roughly speaking, the entire internet (minus explicitly blocked content). The search engine is used to obtain a vast amount of knowledge by a vast number of people. It will link copyright infringing material at a low percentage rate. TVShack on the other hand is used exclusively to link to copyright infringing material. It's used for a very singular purpose at a near one hundred percent rate. IANAL in any country so I can't say what, if any, legal difference exists. Practically speaking the difference is rather straight forward. One entity (TVShack) exists for the exclusive purpose of linking copyrighted material and one does not.
- k-mcgrady 15y ago
  The difference between the two is obvious but at a very basic level all TVShack did was provide links. I can't see why linking to content should ever be illegal. And I think this is another case where they are just trying to make an example of someone. If they actually cared about copyright infringement they would go after the companies hosting the content he linked to.
- why-el 15y ago
  So if he added a couple of links to free movies would that have saved him? I dont see your argument here.
joering2 15y ago
it is different in those ways: * google has established business with presence in most countries where it does pay a huge tax. therefore this fact that they feed a government/police system alone makes them less vulnerable for through investigations * google has tens of thousands employees and it would be very difficult to prosecute an individual. Given 150 engineers worked on google search engine to display links, would you want to see all of them behind bars? that would be bigger trial than Nurnberg's. I dont agree with any of what I wrote. But unfortunately thats just the way it is -- to big to prosecute :( Basically there is no difference between Google and any other web to search and find links. Try to type any movie name using dot instead of space and add "torrent" [1] [1] https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=vanilla.sky+torrent&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=vanilla.sky+torrent https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=vanilla.sky+torrent&...

grecy 15y ago

> The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. In your country. FTFY.