5 ms·

From the article it seems that this guy ran a search engine which might or might nor be illegal in the United States. However, he is British, most of the visito

by mixmax 14y ago

From the article it seems that this guy ran a search engine which might or might nor be illegal in the United States. However, he is British, most of the visitors are British and the servers are not in the United States, yet the US wants him extradited and tried in an American court. This of course begs the question: If an American is running a site hosted in America with mostly American visitors how would the US react if a foreign government wanted to extradite him and possibly put him in jail for many years? Probably not well.

aes256 14y ago
> From the article it seems that this guy ran a search engine which might or might nor be illegal in the United States. However, he is British, most of the visitors are British and the servers are not in the United States, yet the US wants him extradited and tried in an American court. The site was not a search engine. It may have had a search function, but the links were added manually by contributors (who O'Dwyer selected), and O'Dwyer exerted a great deal of control over the content that was included on the site. It was almost certainly illegal in the US (authorising copyright infringement). A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law (O'Dwyer's editorial control over the site prevented him from using a "mere conduit" defence) and thus approved the extradition. O'Dwyer is bang to rights as far as the law currently stands. At this point it's more a case of challenging the absurdity of the law (simply linking to infringing material being an offence) and the absurdity of extraditing a young man to be tried in a foreign court under a foreign jurisdiction for such an offence.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  > A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law Then he should be tried in the UK.
  - aes256 14y ago
    > Then he should be tried in the UK. As it stands, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the UK have shown no interest in prosecuting O'Dwyer, but US authorities have. Perhaps O'Dwyer should be begging the CPS to prosecute him...
    - ashconnor 14y ago
      The CPS has the discretion to prosecute a case if they deem it within the public interest, so how is this case not now within the public interest? Even if it is only to halt the extradition process.
    - mixmax 14y ago
      so if an American did something that was illegal in Pakistan and the US had no interest in prosecuting you'd find it natural that an American citizen should be extradited to Pakistan and prosecuted there? That's basically your argument.
      - reitzensteinm 14y ago
        You missed the GP post (which was also his). He said: "At this point it's more a case of challenging [...] the absurdity of extraditing a young man to be tried in a foreign court under a foreign jurisdiction for such an offence." Discussing the law and its implications as it stands should not be taken for implicit support or approval, but it seems to be far too often around here. Don't shoot the messenger. Edit: I took out the obtuse bit, since mixmax said he didn't see it. (I can't reply to him yet).
        mixmax 14y ago
        maybe you're right - I didn't catch that. Apologies to aes256 if I misread his comment.
      - jahewson 14y ago
        No, the act has to be illegal in the UK too in order for the UK to extradite one of its citizens. e.g. you can't be extradited from the UK for insulting a Thai monarch.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    Which is the approach the French, Germans, Russians, Austrians, Chinese, Japanese etc. take. [See link below]
- jahewson 14y ago
  Hmm. "authorising copyright infringement" - that's not a concept that exists, especially when we're talking about links. Perhaps you mean "aiding" or "facilitating"?
  - aes256 14y ago
    Apparently it does exist, although it's not well-defined under UK law: "Iain Connor, who works for Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW, said that provisions within the UK's Extradition Act would give the legal means for suspected criminals to be summoned to the US. The UK-US extradition treaty agreement allows either country to surrender a criminal suspect to the other if the crime carries a minimum punishment of a year's prison sentence. "US companies are likely to try and secure a conviction in the US where they know that they could succeed on the basis of an offence of 'authorising copyright infringement' which in the UK is not a well defined offence," Connor said." — http://www.out-law.com/page-12056 http://www.out-law.com/page-12056
- cabalamat 14y ago
  > A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law A questionable assertion, given that: 1. in the only BitTorrent tracker case to have come to court, Oink, the defendant was found not guilty http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6998784/Oink-music-sharing-website-creator-cleared-of-fraud.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6998784/Oink-mu... 2. the CPS (UK prosecuting authority) regard running a BitTorrent tracker to be "a civil rather than a criminal matter" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8345801/Prosecutors-drop-piracy-case-against-film-sharing-website.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8345801/Prosecuto...
  - aes256 14y ago
    > A questionable assertion It's not my assertion, but that of District Judge Quentin Purdy: > The judge agreed with John Jones, barrister for the United States government, that “because he was intimately involved in deciding who was allowed to post links on the TVShack websites, which links would be posted”, Mr O’Dwyer’s alleged conduct was a criminal offence under British copyright law. > In its argument the defence had cited the 2010 case of TV-Links, a website that offered a similar directory of links to pirated material to TVShack. The judge found it was acting as a “mere conduit” and dismissed the criminal charges against the two men who operated TV-Links. > Judge Purdy however found Mr O’Dwyer had exercised too much control over TVShack to successfully claim the same defence. — http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-Richard-ODwyer-can-be-extradited-over-TV-website.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-R...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by mixmax 14y ago

aes256 14y ago

> From the article it seems that this guy ran a search engine which might or might nor be illegal in the United States. However, he is British, most of the visitors are British and the servers are not in the United States, yet the US wants him extradited and tried in an American court. The site was not a search engine. It may have had a search function, but the links were added manually by contributors (who O'Dwyer selected), and O'Dwyer exerted a great deal of control over the content that was included on the site. It was almost certainly illegal in the US (authorising copyright infringement). A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law (O'Dwyer's editorial control over the site prevented him from using a "mere conduit" defence) and thus approved the extradition. O'Dwyer is bang to rights as far as the law currently stands. At this point it's more a case of challenging the absurdity of the law (simply linking to infringing material being an offence) and the absurdity of extraditing a young man to be tried in a foreign court under a foreign jurisdiction for such an offence.

mibbitier 14y ago
> A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law Then he should be tried in the UK.
- aes256 14y ago
  > Then he should be tried in the UK. As it stands, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the UK have shown no interest in prosecuting O'Dwyer, but US authorities have. Perhaps O'Dwyer should be begging the CPS to prosecute him...
  - ashconnor 14y ago
    The CPS has the discretion to prosecute a case if they deem it within the public interest, so how is this case not now within the public interest? Even if it is only to halt the extradition process.
  - mixmax 14y ago
    so if an American did something that was illegal in Pakistan and the US had no interest in prosecuting you'd find it natural that an American citizen should be extradited to Pakistan and prosecuted there? That's basically your argument.
    - reitzensteinm 14y ago
      You missed the GP post (which was also his). He said: "At this point it's more a case of challenging [...] the absurdity of extraditing a young man to be tried in a foreign court under a foreign jurisdiction for such an offence." Discussing the law and its implications as it stands should not be taken for implicit support or approval, but it seems to be far too often around here. Don't shoot the messenger. Edit: I took out the obtuse bit, since mixmax said he didn't see it. (I can't reply to him yet).
      - mixmax 14y ago
        maybe you're right - I didn't catch that. Apologies to aes256 if I misread his comment.
    - jahewson 14y ago
      No, the act has to be illegal in the UK too in order for the UK to extradite one of its citizens. e.g. you can't be extradited from the UK for insulting a Thai monarch.
- arethuza 14y ago
  Which is the approach the French, Germans, Russians, Austrians, Chinese, Japanese etc. take. [See link below]
jahewson 14y ago
Hmm. "authorising copyright infringement" - that's not a concept that exists, especially when we're talking about links. Perhaps you mean "aiding" or "facilitating"?
- aes256 14y ago
  Apparently it does exist, although it's not well-defined under UK law: "Iain Connor, who works for Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW, said that provisions within the UK's Extradition Act would give the legal means for suspected criminals to be summoned to the US. The UK-US extradition treaty agreement allows either country to surrender a criminal suspect to the other if the crime carries a minimum punishment of a year's prison sentence. "US companies are likely to try and secure a conviction in the US where they know that they could succeed on the basis of an offence of 'authorising copyright infringement' which in the UK is not a well defined offence," Connor said." — http://www.out-law.com/page-12056 http://www.out-law.com/page-12056
cabalamat 14y ago
> A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law A questionable assertion, given that: 1. in the only BitTorrent tracker case to have come to court, Oink, the defendant was found not guilty http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6998784/Oink-music-sharing-website-creator-cleared-of-fraud.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6998784/Oink-mu... 2. the CPS (UK prosecuting authority) regard running a BitTorrent tracker to be "a civil rather than a criminal matter" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8345801/Prosecutors-drop-piracy-case-against-film-sharing-website.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8345801/Prosecuto...
- aes256 14y ago
  > A questionable assertion It's not my assertion, but that of District Judge Quentin Purdy: > The judge agreed with John Jones, barrister for the United States government, that “because he was intimately involved in deciding who was allowed to post links on the TVShack websites, which links would be posted”, Mr O’Dwyer’s alleged conduct was a criminal offence under British copyright law. > In its argument the defence had cited the 2010 case of TV-Links, a website that offered a similar directory of links to pirated material to TVShack. The judge found it was acting as a “mere conduit” and dismissed the criminal charges against the two men who operated TV-Links. > Judge Purdy however found Mr O’Dwyer had exercised too much control over TVShack to successfully claim the same defence. — http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-Richard-ODwyer-can-be-extradited-over-TV-website.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-R...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]