8 ms·

Copyright wars heat up: US wins extradition of college kid from England

140 points by bmking 15y ago

robgough 15y ago
As a British citizen I'm not sure if this makes me sad or angry. I think it's both.
- unicron 15y ago
  Despite being born in the UK and being a British citizen, I'm entitled to a Swiss passport as my father is Swiss. I think it's about time I got one and bailed. This country is turning into a political and legal tyranny. As for Theresa May's lack of intervention, that damn woman has done more damage to this country than Thatcher.
- danssig 15y ago
  If I were British I would question what our nation's sovereignty actually means. It's not like this kid killed an american and fled back to the UK. Personally, I would like to see a law that says we will never extradite someone to a country where they could face a harsher penalty than they would at home for the same crime. If nationality can't offer you at least that, what is it actually buying me?
lignuist 15y ago
This is scary. Not only for British citizens, but for all citizens of the EU, since we got the European Arrest Warrant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
jgrahamc 15y ago
He's 23. He's not a 'kid'.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - corin_ 15y ago
    Jgc isn't in favour of what has happened. His point is that 23 years old is not by any definition "a kid" (nor even when he started it at 18, which is irrelevant anyway) - other than headline bait, is it relevant at all? Would it be less bad if it was a 40 year old in this case?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
      - corin_ 15y ago
        1.) 18 is legally an adult, I don't see why this is any different than when an 18 year old murders someone or deals drugs. Obviously the crimes are very different, but if/while what he did is illegal, why should the legal system treat it differently age-wise than anything else? 2.) He kept doing it for years, which indicates he didn't (or at least hadn't yet) regret it.
        aes256 15y ago
        1.) 18 is legally an adult, I don't see why this is any different than when an 18 year old murders someone or deals drugs. Obviously the crimes are very different, but if/while what he did is illegal, why should the legal system treat it differently age-wise than anything else? The point is that the extradition process is daunting enough in itself. In many respects it amounts to punishment before trial. You are separated from your loved ones, transported to a foreign land, locked up in a foreign jail and tried in a foreign court under foreign law. This particular extradition case is made more objectionable by the fact that O'Dwyer is not a self-sufficient adult. He's a 23-year-old university student. It is made more objectionable still by the fact that he is being charged with something that many do not believe should be a criminal offence, and to the best of my knowledge, is not a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. If linking to copyrighted material is an offence, then surely every search engine should be indicted for facilitating copyright infringement on an unimaginable scale? 2.) He kept doing it for years, which indicates he didn't (or at least hadn't yet) regret it. He stated just yesterday after the court hearing that he didn't regret it; that it had helped his university studies "to no end" given he is studying Computer Science. Is he supposed to regret not breaking any laws in the country of which he is a citizen?
genu1 15y ago
Terrifying. The effects of local policy making/lobbying exhibits zero friction in transitioning to the global stage. And without precedence there is no checks/balance to ratify/amend international standards. It's been reduced simply to tit for tat; "You forfeit the rights of your citizens and I'll give you diplomatic favors?" "Deal"
dazbradbury 15y ago
I'm not sure why this site is being treated any differently to all the other link sharing sites out there? Is he being made an example out of? Just seems like this is all at a great cost to both the UK and US, and yet, does very little to tackle the perceived problem. Link sharing sites continue to exist. As his site was taken down after authorities spoke to him, was any money seized? Either way, if the police feel the matter has been dealt with, I'm not sure what the US aim to achieve out of this. Perhaps we should compile a list of US based link sharing sites and ask they focus on problems at home before extraditing others. Maybe then the laws and procedures involving such sites will be suitably developed to be able to take overseas.
- panacea 15y ago
  It's a FUD grenade, surely.
- throwawaymm 15y ago
  Seems to me this is an attempt by the US to say to the world: "You must live by our laws now". Terrifying.
  - nailer 15y ago
    The judge rules that equivalent laws existed in the UK, which was the basis of the extradition.
    - throwawaymm 15y ago
      Surely if the equivalent laws did actually exist in the UK, then he should be tried in the UK.
      - untog 15y ago
        He could have been, but the UK courts said that they had no interest in prosecuting. Seems strange that it opens up the possibility of extradition, but there you are.
- 15y ago
meow 15y ago
It's more of a massacre than war.. the strength of parties involved is simply not comparable (mostly due to apparently spine less UK govt)..
- crusso 15y ago
  The situation is pretty pathetic. I'm not at all an advocate for piracy, but big media companies just have way too much control over government. To me it just serves as a reminder to always act to reduce the power and reach of government.
VonLipwig 15y ago
It's bullsh*t. I agree that a person doesn't need to actually visit a country to face extradition. I agree that the US should be able to extradite people who break their laws and harm American citizens and business. However this doesn't look like a legal action to me. It looks like a political one. The guy never hosted the content. He simply created a resource that made content already hosted on hundreds of websites elsewhere easier to find. Where does it stop? If my website links to a site like The Pirate Bay or whatever does that mean I am helping people infringe copyright? If a US citizen verbally asks me where they can 'aquire' photoshop and I say.. "Oh you could probably find a torrent at blah address" does this book me a one way trip to the states? US silliness aside it is demoralising that the UK Government provides so little protection to residents. This guy didn't physically harm anyone. He didn't make a site that specifically targetted the US. He didn't host the content. He didn't visit the US or host his site there. He didn't even break a UK law... How you can send a resident to - potentially - be incarcerated in a foreign country for commiting an act which your own legal system doesn't believe is a crime is beyond me.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Nobody is going to extradite you for putting a link on your personal website to The Pirate Bay. In fact: they can't; even if that link technically does establish contributory infringement, your liability for posting that link is civil, not criminal. That's not what this guy did. He made 15,000GBP/mo placing ads on a site that prominently featured first-run movies and included promotional copy he himself added suggesting that the site would save you money because you didn't have to go to a theater. It's the running a business on copyright infringement that gets you charged criminally.
  - poodougnut 15y ago
    So what is the offence he committed in the UK?
    - tptacek 15y ago
      The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, Section 107, (2A), which establishes provisions for criminal infringement.
Mordor 15y ago
How is a UK resident reasonably expected to understand foreign laws and judicial processes? One would hope Theresa May, as Home Secretary, is fighting to protect the British people by pulling the plug on the web.
- tptacek 15y ago
  They can't, which is why you can't easily be extradited from the UK for foreign crimes that aren't also crimes in the UK. Unfortunately for him, the crime he's charged with is also 1:1 a crime in the UK.
  - youngtaff 15y ago
    But if you look at the case of Christopher Tappin, who was caught in an FBI sting allegedly exporting missile batteries to Iran... 1. The batteries were dual use 2. He never actually did the deal, he was named as the exporter by the guy who did 3. He thought the batteries were going to Holland. Now there may be more to this than we know, but none of the above is a crime in the UK
tptacek 15y ago
Lots of message board legal opinions on this thread. Few if any references to the actual ruling, which is here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... Things you'd want to know before forming an opinion of what happened here: * The guy is alleged to have made over $230,000 (a sum that the US says has been tracked), and himself admits to making 15,000GBP per month(!) from the site. * After having his domain (TVShack.net) seized in 2010, before the extradition request, he registered "TVShack.cc" and set the site back up (with a cute "Fuck the Police" banner). It's hard to know whether he'd have been extradited if he'd have just shut the thing down. * Criminal copyright infringement does in fact exist in the UK, as does contributory infringement; the key element that establishes criminal infringement is "intent to profit", which has been clearly established. The guy made a lucrative business brokering pirated movies. * The UK has a "common carrier" statute (there termed "mere conduit", which, more poetic, innit?) which the defendant lost claim to by (a) exercising control over who could post what videos to his site and (b) idiotically posting copy on his website about how people were "saving money" by watching movies through his site instead of at the theater. It's easy to believe that lots of people have gotten innocently tangled up in legal nonsense because of the chaos and (perhaps) overreach in copyright enforcement. This doesn't look like one of those people.
- aes256 15y ago
  The UK has a "common carrier" statute (there termed "mere conduit", which, more poetic, innit?) which the defendant lost claim to by (a) exercising control over who could post what videos to his site and (b) idiotically posting copy on his website about how people were "saving money" by watching movies through his site instead of at the theater. That is a major point of contention. The prosecution argued the "mere conduit" exemption does not apply because O'Dwyer "was intimately involved in deciding who was allowed to post links on the TVShack websites, which links would be posted [...]" but it is not immediately clear that by doing so he forfeited the exemption. The applicability of the exemption hinges on the interpretation of "transmission", for example. In a case such as this, who initiates the transmission of copyright infringing material? Is it the cyberlocker service that hosts the copyrighted files? Is it the link aggregator site like TVShack that links to the cyberlocker service? Is it the search engine that links to TVShack that links to the cyberlocker service? You see where I'm going here. Nor is it immediately clear that by selecting who could post links on the site, O'Dwyer forfeited the exemption. The regulation states a service provider is exempt if (amongst other requirements) it "did not select or modify the information contained in the transmission" Does selecting posters of links to transmissions constitute selecting information contained in the transmission?
WorkingDead 15y ago
I think this is very telling of how fragile and insecure the institutions of the US economy and government are that they could be so threatened by nothing more than flickering lights on a computer screen.
trustfundbaby 15y ago
The thing that bugs me is this ... If an American had done this (or something similar enough) would the US government allow them be extradited to the EU to be tried and incarcerated if found guilty? I think not.
junto 15y ago
Notably, Dave is visiting Obama. Coincidence?

140 points by bmking 15y ago

As a British citizen I'm not sure if this makes me sad or angry. I think it's both.

unicron 15y ago
Despite being born in the UK and being a British citizen, I'm entitled to a Swiss passport as my father is Swiss. I think it's about time I got one and bailed. This country is turning into a political and legal tyranny. As for Theresa May's lack of intervention, that damn woman has done more damage to this country than Thatcher.
danssig 15y ago
If I were British I would question what our nation's sovereignty actually means. It's not like this kid killed an american and fled back to the UK. Personally, I would like to see a law that says we will never extradite someone to a country where they could face a harsher penalty than they would at home for the same crime. If nationality can't offer you at least that, what is it actually buying me?

This is scary. Not only for British citizens, but for all citizens of the EU, since we got the European Arrest Warrant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

jgrahamc 15y ago

He's 23. He's not a 'kid'.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- corin_ 15y ago
  Jgc isn't in favour of what has happened. His point is that 23 years old is not by any definition "a kid" (nor even when he started it at 18, which is irrelevant anyway) - other than headline bait, is it relevant at all? Would it be less bad if it was a 40 year old in this case?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    - corin_ 15y ago
      1.) 18 is legally an adult, I don't see why this is any different than when an 18 year old murders someone or deals drugs. Obviously the crimes are very different, but if/while what he did is illegal, why should the legal system treat it differently age-wise than anything else? 2.) He kept doing it for years, which indicates he didn't (or at least hadn't yet) regret it.
      - aes256 15y ago
        1.) 18 is legally an adult, I don't see why this is any different than when an 18 year old murders someone or deals drugs. Obviously the crimes are very different, but if/while what he did is illegal, why should the legal system treat it differently age-wise than anything else? The point is that the extradition process is daunting enough in itself. In many respects it amounts to punishment before trial. You are separated from your loved ones, transported to a foreign land, locked up in a foreign jail and tried in a foreign court under foreign law. This particular extradition case is made more objectionable by the fact that O'Dwyer is not a self-sufficient adult. He's a 23-year-old university student. It is made more objectionable still by the fact that he is being charged with something that many do not believe should be a criminal offence, and to the best of my knowledge, is not a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. If linking to copyrighted material is an offence, then surely every search engine should be indicted for facilitating copyright infringement on an unimaginable scale? 2.) He kept doing it for years, which indicates he didn't (or at least hadn't yet) regret it. He stated just yesterday after the court hearing that he didn't regret it; that it had helped his university studies "to no end" given he is studying Computer Science. Is he supposed to regret not breaking any laws in the country of which he is a citizen?

genu1 15y ago

Terrifying. The effects of local policy making/lobbying exhibits zero friction in transitioning to the global stage. And without precedence there is no checks/balance to ratify/amend international standards. It's been reduced simply to tit for tat; "You forfeit the rights of your citizens and I'll give you diplomatic favors?" "Deal"

dazbradbury 15y ago

I'm not sure why this site is being treated any differently to all the other link sharing sites out there? Is he being made an example out of? Just seems like this is all at a great cost to both the UK and US, and yet, does very little to tackle the perceived problem. Link sharing sites continue to exist. As his site was taken down after authorities spoke to him, was any money seized? Either way, if the police feel the matter has been dealt with, I'm not sure what the US aim to achieve out of this. Perhaps we should compile a list of US based link sharing sites and ask they focus on problems at home before extraditing others. Maybe then the laws and procedures involving such sites will be suitably developed to be able to take overseas.

panacea 15y ago
It's a FUD grenade, surely.
throwawaymm 15y ago
Seems to me this is an attempt by the US to say to the world: "You must live by our laws now". Terrifying.
- nailer 15y ago
  The judge rules that equivalent laws existed in the UK, which was the basis of the extradition.
  - throwawaymm 15y ago
    Surely if the equivalent laws did actually exist in the UK, then he should be tried in the UK.
    - untog 15y ago
      He could have been, but the UK courts said that they had no interest in prosecuting. Seems strange that it opens up the possibility of extradition, but there you are.
15y ago

meow 15y ago

It's more of a massacre than war.. the strength of parties involved is simply not comparable (mostly due to apparently spine less UK govt)..

crusso 15y ago
The situation is pretty pathetic. I'm not at all an advocate for piracy, but big media companies just have way too much control over government. To me it just serves as a reminder to always act to reduce the power and reach of government.

VonLipwig 15y ago

It's bullsh*t. I agree that a person doesn't need to actually visit a country to face extradition. I agree that the US should be able to extradite people who break their laws and harm American citizens and business. However this doesn't look like a legal action to me. It looks like a political one. The guy never hosted the content. He simply created a resource that made content already hosted on hundreds of websites elsewhere easier to find. Where does it stop? If my website links to a site like The Pirate Bay or whatever does that mean I am helping people infringe copyright? If a US citizen verbally asks me where they can 'aquire' photoshop and I say.. "Oh you could probably find a torrent at blah address" does this book me a one way trip to the states? US silliness aside it is demoralising that the UK Government provides so little protection to residents. This guy didn't physically harm anyone. He didn't make a site that specifically targetted the US. He didn't host the content. He didn't visit the US or host his site there. He didn't even break a UK law... How you can send a resident to - potentially - be incarcerated in a foreign country for commiting an act which your own legal system doesn't believe is a crime is beyond me.

tptacek 15y ago
Nobody is going to extradite you for putting a link on your personal website to The Pirate Bay. In fact: they can't; even if that link technically does establish contributory infringement, your liability for posting that link is civil, not criminal. That's not what this guy did. He made 15,000GBP/mo placing ads on a site that prominently featured first-run movies and included promotional copy he himself added suggesting that the site would save you money because you didn't have to go to a theater. It's the running a business on copyright infringement that gets you charged criminally.
- poodougnut 15y ago
  So what is the offence he committed in the UK?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, Section 107, (2A), which establishes provisions for criminal infringement.

Mordor 15y ago

How is a UK resident reasonably expected to understand foreign laws and judicial processes? One would hope Theresa May, as Home Secretary, is fighting to protect the British people by pulling the plug on the web.

tptacek 15y ago
They can't, which is why you can't easily be extradited from the UK for foreign crimes that aren't also crimes in the UK. Unfortunately for him, the crime he's charged with is also 1:1 a crime in the UK.
- youngtaff 15y ago
  But if you look at the case of Christopher Tappin, who was caught in an FBI sting allegedly exporting missile batteries to Iran... 1. The batteries were dual use 2. He never actually did the deal, he was named as the exporter by the guy who did 3. He thought the batteries were going to Holland. Now there may be more to this than we know, but none of the above is a crime in the UK

tptacek 15y ago

Lots of message board legal opinions on this thread. Few if any references to the actual ruling, which is here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... Things you'd want to know before forming an opinion of what happened here: * The guy is alleged to have made over $230,000 (a sum that the US says has been tracked), and himself admits to making 15,000GBP per month(!) from the site. * After having his domain (TVShack.net) seized in 2010, before the extradition request, he registered "TVShack.cc" and set the site back up (with a cute "Fuck the Police" banner). It's hard to know whether he'd have been extradited if he'd have just shut the thing down. * Criminal copyright infringement does in fact exist in the UK, as does contributory infringement; the key element that establishes criminal infringement is "intent to profit", which has been clearly established. The guy made a lucrative business brokering pirated movies. * The UK has a "common carrier" statute (there termed "mere conduit", which, more poetic, innit?) which the defendant lost claim to by (a) exercising control over who could post what videos to his site and (b) idiotically posting copy on his website about how people were "saving money" by watching movies through his site instead of at the theater. It's easy to believe that lots of people have gotten innocently tangled up in legal nonsense because of the chaos and (perhaps) overreach in copyright enforcement. This doesn't look like one of those people.

aes256 15y ago
The UK has a "common carrier" statute (there termed "mere conduit", which, more poetic, innit?) which the defendant lost claim to by (a) exercising control over who could post what videos to his site and (b) idiotically posting copy on his website about how people were "saving money" by watching movies through his site instead of at the theater. That is a major point of contention. The prosecution argued the "mere conduit" exemption does not apply because O'Dwyer "was intimately involved in deciding who was allowed to post links on the TVShack websites, which links would be posted [...]" but it is not immediately clear that by doing so he forfeited the exemption. The applicability of the exemption hinges on the interpretation of "transmission", for example. In a case such as this, who initiates the transmission of copyright infringing material? Is it the cyberlocker service that hosts the copyrighted files? Is it the link aggregator site like TVShack that links to the cyberlocker service? Is it the search engine that links to TVShack that links to the cyberlocker service? You see where I'm going here. Nor is it immediately clear that by selecting who could post links on the site, O'Dwyer forfeited the exemption. The regulation states a service provider is exempt if (amongst other requirements) it "did not select or modify the information contained in the transmission" Does selecting posters of links to transmissions constitute selecting information contained in the transmission?

WorkingDead 15y ago

I think this is very telling of how fragile and insecure the institutions of the US economy and government are that they could be so threatened by nothing more than flickering lights on a computer screen.

trustfundbaby 15y ago

The thing that bugs me is this ... If an American had done this (or something similar enough) would the US government allow them be extradited to the EU to be tried and incarcerated if found guilty? I think not.

junto 15y ago

Notably, Dave is visiting Obama. Coincidence?