US Trying To Extradite UK TVShack Admin Over Questionable Copyright Charges?

from the copyright-gone-mad dept

Thu, Jun 16th 2011 8:30am — Mike Masnick

In the latest example of US copyright interests gone mad, there are reports that there's an attempt to extradite the admin of TVShack from the UK to the US to face criminal copyright infringement charges. This is ridiculous on all sorts of levels. First, TVShack.net was one of the very first domains seized a year ago. TVShack did not host any content and was merely a linking site, which raised questions (as with other seizures) about whether or not it actually violated US copyright law. Also, TVShack has gone through a few different versions and (potentially) owners/admins. However, one of the admins, Richard O'Dwyer, a computer science student, was recently arrested. It's not clear if anyone even knows which instance of TVShack he's accused of running.

Where this becomes really troubling is that other, very similar sites have been found legal in the UK multiple times. Running a site that users use to put up links and which doesn't host any actual content, is not seen as illegal in the UK. So it seems particularly ridiculous that there's some sort of attempt to extradite the guy to the US to face charges here. As some have pointed out it appears to be "an attempt to make US federal laws applicable in the UK."

Unfortunately, the details of the extradition request are a bit muddled in all of the UK papers reporting on it. Lots of them are comparing the situation to the famous Gary McKinnon situation, but I think this is clearly different. This just seems blatantly vindictive for no good reason.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, extradition, links, tvshack, uk, us

109 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 8:38am

Pretty neat, lets treat people accused of copyright infringement like drug lords. Let us extradite them, try them, throw them in jail with consecutive sentences, and let them rot for 250 years in the darkest box we can find.

Seems like this is going to be more great PR for RIAA and the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 8:43am
  
  Re:
  It's now a government thing.
  
  It's censorship.
  
  Fact remains that if you're looking at this with the words of Dan Glickman in mind (ie "making piracy as difficult as possible"), you see that they're targeting admins to try to make life hell for those that just want to run a site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    In this case, they are using a law that doesn't exist, in an attempt to extradite a person from a country where what he is doing is legal. I understand that they are trying to make life difficult for the admins. But, escalting to this level, of almost certain illegality, just seems like an act of desperation on the part of the ICE and the DOJ.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "just seems like an act of desperation on the part of the ICE and the DOJ"
      
      That implies they knew what they were doing in the first place.
      
      Face it, they were listening to the MPAA and RIAA about copyright infringement. How is that ever a good idea?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 2:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You've got it wrong. Completely wrong. It's not desperation. They're testing the waters. "How far can we actually go?"
      
      If this one case "works", then they start doing the same for tons more sites, effectively killing the local laws. Then they move on to another country. It's all part of their lobbying program with other nations as well.
      
      It's simply the next step in their "We will rule you" agenda. Obviously we missed the memo that every gov employee got to step it up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:07am
  
  Re:
  Forget the dark hole. Lets put him in a jail cell with bubba, the 300 pound, HIV infected, gay rapist. This way the record label get the death penalty they have been wanting for infringement. And Mike gets to do a story titled "Accusation of Copyright Infringement Leads to Death Sentence by The US Courts".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 7:04pm
  
  Re: Costing The US Taxpayer
  "lets treat people accused of copyright infringement like drug lords" -- Yup, so how is that whole "War on Drugs" thing panning out for you? Big success is it? Hardly costs the ole US taxpayer anything, is that right? Getting ready to declare "Mission Accomplished" sometime soon now, are you? Noticed how those Mexican drug lords are going to go broke and turn into nice law-abiding citizens, any day now? Or maybe not?
  
  Now, at the behest of a tiny industry of no economic importance, the US government is attempting to ramp up another whole system of repression to try to stamp out file sharing. Good move, guys, take on your whole teenage and young adult population, so you can suck up to a tiny bunch of thugs who are cultural vandals. It would be interesting to work out the total cost to the US taxpayer of all this madness, in a year, then compare it to the total profits of the industry, for the same period.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 7:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Costing The US Taxpayer
    Yup, so how is that whole "War on Drugs" thing panning out for you? Big success is it?
    
    For your information, YES. It has allowed the law enforcement and prison industries to grow in ways that would have most likely been impossible without it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 16 Jun 2011 @ 8:43am

an attempt to make US federal laws applicable in the UK

It's even worse than that. It's an attempt to make up US law and make the made up law apply in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rabbit80, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:01am

This makes me wonder what would happen if I am running a site that hosts content that is in the public domain where I live - can I be extradited to a country where that content is not in the public domain to face trial?

For example - the works of James Joyce will become public domain next year in ireland - could i be treated as a criminal and be extradited to the US for trial for hosting it when it does? That's insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 11:55am
  
  Re:
  For example - the works of James Joyce will become public domain next year in ireland - could i be treated as a criminal and be extradited to the US for trial for hosting it when it does?
  
  Of course. U.S. law trumps all other.
  
  That's insane.
  
  It's up to Ireland to keep their laws up to date with the U.S. If they are negligent and don't, then that's what happens.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Someantimalwareguy, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I hope you simply missed the /snark tag when posting or you have no clue regarding what obligations any nation has to another as far as adhering to the laws of that other country are concerned; regardless of existing treaties...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dave, 16 Jun 2011 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I sympathize. The trolls here take such absurd stances that it is really really tough to detect sarcasm. I think the post above yours is sarcasm, though. We'll go with that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:05am

If I remember correctly, the site was an embedded video display site, not just a random link site. I think it's stated goal was to bypass copyright restrictions. It would seem that the site operator was aware of what he was including as part of his site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:13am
  
  Re:
  What I never understood is why no one's going after the people who are actually uploading or hosting this content. Taking down a site like this doesn't seem like it would be very effective.
  
  "If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause.
  It's quite a lot like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze.
  If you instead attempt to rest the pistol from the hand, I would not be able to equate my life with sand."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    "What I never understood is why no one's going after the people who are actually uploading or hosting this content. "
    
    Apparently that is too time consuming and costly. In typical business as usual fashion, the shortest route to profit is pursued.
    
    ..... Nothing personal, it's just business.
    It doesn't matter how vehemently they deny it, Business Ethics is an oxymoron.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    > I never understood is why no one's going after
    > the people who are actually uploading or hosting
    
    Why? Because it is always Always ALWAYS easier to go after an innocent party.
    
    That's because an innocent party is not trying to hide.
    
    Get mugged next to a building, it's the building owner's fault! Facilitators and Enablers!
    
    Get robbed on a bus? It's the bus company's fault! Facilitators and Enablers!
    
    Find a link to infringing content using Google? It's Google's fault! They are building their business on infringement! Facilitators and Enablers! Don't go after the people who put up the infringing content (clue: which is not necessarily the site that hosts it). That would prevent you from shaking down others such as Yahoo, Bing or others. (Sort of like mass infringement shakedown letters.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 11:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's these sorts of nonsensical, alarmist, Chicken Little statements that totally defeat the arguments of those who oppose the Protect IP Act and similar legislation and laws. Google, Bing and yahoo are not "dedicated to infringing activities" and "serve no other legitimate commercial purpose". TVShack meets that definition. When the guys who vote on these bills hear absurd claims like the law makes Google liable as an enabler they literally laugh out loud.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When the guys who vote on these bills hear absurd claims like the law makes Google liable as an enabler they literally laugh out loud.
        
        I think the real laughing was probably going on as they wrote them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > "dedicated to infringing activities" and
        > "serve no other legitimate commercial purpose
        
        Those are what we in the lawyering business call weasel words. They're specifically designed to be as vague and as open to interpretation as possible to enable situations where you don't know what they *actually* mean until you're in cuffs facing a judge or staring down the barrel of a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
        
        In other words, "dedicated to infringing activities" means what the prosecutor wants it to mean and the government gets to decide it, a case-by-case basis, so as to provide no bright line standard against which people can judge their conduct or to which the government can be held accountable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        CDT lawyers were largely responsible for the definition of a rogue website in the Protect IP Act. Perhaps you should contact them with a more useful definition, or even offer one here. Or better still, why don't you agree to represent this poor innocent youth pro bono after he's extradited to the US?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701, 16 Jun 2011 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Perhaps you should contact them with a more
        > useful definition, or even offer one here.
        > Or better still, why don't you agree to
        > represent this poor innocent youth pro bono
        > after he's extradited to the US?
        
        Or even better yet, why don't I just do what I can to oppose my government becoming the personal enforcement arm of the entertainment industry and greasing up and bending over for their every whim?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dave, 16 Jun 2011 @ 2:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There isn't any grease involved.
        
        Oh! You mean the government gets grease! I know I sure haven't got any.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2011 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, that should help the kid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 18 Jun 2011 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Oh, that should help the kid.
        
        The kid has his own lawyers, who are actually licensed to practice in the UK. I can't personally intervene in every injustice on the planet. Doesn't mean I shouldn't object to them when I see them happening.
        
        You seem to be of the opinion that unless someone is ready to drop everything and hop on a flight to Britain and personally take up this guy's cause, they shouldn't say anything about it.
        
        Nonsense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws.org (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        they literally laugh out loud.
        
        [citation needed]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - iBelieve, 17 Jun 2011 @ 3:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At earlier times when these companies were just starting up welcomed any and all content to draw in the viewers and hits. Now that they are rich and could possibly survive the next three economic collapses, they not only deny that infringing content is totally unacceptable, but vehemently deny ever utilizing that content. They would have us believe they have all earned their angelic wings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        iBelieve, 17 Jun 2011 @ 3:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Correction: They not only suggest that infringing content is totally unacceptable, but deny ever utilizing infringed content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - iBelieve, 17 Jun 2011 @ 3:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I have no doubt that in many cases the same people suing are the very same people uploading the content in an attempt to sting internet audiences in the ass and then sue them. Sound familiar?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:15am
  
  Re:
  and it was found *legal* in the UK where the site resides
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I should point out..., 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  ... that all of that is irrelevant. You can't be charged with breaking a law that does not exists. Their intentions are irrelevant if they never violated a law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Uh, everything is against the law, God! You freetards are so stupid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I shall make all laws apply globally. These are the three Laws of life:
      
      1) If you download a film, your life and that of your antedecents and descendents are forfeit;
      2) If you download a song, your testicles/ovaries are forfeit;
      3) If you defraud the government, you get a raise and more ways to defraud the government.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  I'd ask for a citation, but I think we all know that would be a waste of time.
  
  "If I remember correctly, ..."
  
  "I think ..."
  
  "It would seem ..."
  
  Yep, real solid evidence there, troll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    You want a citation?
    
    Try google.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dave, 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey I put your citation into APA format, but I don't think it references the information you think it does:
      
      "Google." Google. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 June 2011. .
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ikarushka (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 11:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I can't try Google. I don't have money to hire lawyers that could match Google's.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymous, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:38am
  
  Re:
  if what you say here is true, he would have been found guilty of copyright infringement in the UK. from what i understand, that is not the case
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  If I remember correctly, the site was an embedded video display site, not just a random link site. I think it's stated goal was to bypass copyright restrictions. It would seem that the site operator was aware of what he was including as part of his site.
  
  Right. And if the site was aimed at the US, the site's operator would be opening himself up to jurisdiction in the US. This is nothing new. It matters not if it's legal where he resides. You can't just hide in another country and intentionally break US law and get away with it. The feds are clearly sending a message to would-be infringers who think otherwise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, sure. If they were breaking a law that actually existed in the US.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Well, sure. If they were breaking a law that actually existed in the US."
      
      Even if it were a real law, the assertion is debatable.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, given that the US now has laws on its books that allow citizens to 'break' laws of other countries (read: stupid libel laws, etc.) with no harm to them, then how should it work the other way, other than "America uber alles"?
        
        Once you start down the "you broke a law in my country even though you were in your country" then all laws boil down to those of the nastiest dictatorship/theocracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 11:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mohammed was a child rapist and Islam is a shit religion. Know what I did there? I broke a Saudi Arabian law that says Thou Shalt Not Insult the Islamic Religion. I'm hiding in a different country. Should I be extradited to S.A. to face the death penalty?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Try again, numbnuts. There's no extradition treaty between the US and Saudi Arabia.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Try again, numbnuts. There's no extradition treaty between the US and Saudi Arabia.
        
        In which case Saudi forces may have to conduct a raid to get you. Wait, do the Saudis do that kind of thing or is it only the U.S.?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DH's Love Child (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So let's try this one, Queen Elizabeth is actually a drag queen covering for Prince Phillip's blatant homosexuality.
        
        There, I'm now liable for libel in the UK (where we obviously DO have an extradition treaty...)
        
        Now what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Saudi Arabia was not the best example indeed. But if you look the list of countries with which extradition treaty does exist, you will shiver. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/United_States_extradition_treaties_countries.PNG
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Right. And if the site was aimed at the US, the site's operator would be opening himself up to jurisdiction in the US.
    
    How do you "aim" a website? A steady hand?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 5:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How do you "aim" a website? A steady hand?
      
      You plug your webcam in backwards and look through it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > And if the site was aimed at the US, the site's
    > operator would be opening himself up to
    > jurisdiction in the US
    
    You apparently have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the law of jurisdiction if you believe that "aiming a web site at the US" somehow gives the US government jurisdiction over you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > And if the site was aimed at the US, the site's
    > operator would be opening himself up to
    > jurisdiction in the US
    
    You apparently have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the law of jurisdiction if you believe that "aiming a web site at the US" somehow gives the US government jurisdiction over you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 3:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In Soviet Amerika, Jurisdiction catches YOU!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich Fiscus (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 3:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    >> You can't just hide in another country and intentionally break US law and get
    >> away with it.
    Really? Then explain to me how SlySoft and FengTao Software manage to sell DVD and Blu-ray ripping software to US customers, which would be a violation of the DMCA, with no repercussions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 16 Jun 2011 @ 5:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If I didn't want to be extradited to the states, I could just convince some backwater Texas town that I committed a murder in their town. That would effectively make it illegal for my country to extradite me...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - iBelieve, 17 Jun 2011 @ 4:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I have no doubt that business models attempting to cut costs of hard copies and physical marketing in the real world has led to this playground of cat and mouse and these models continue to evolve as court decisions are enabling them near to rewrite the laws 100% as this is deemed to be profitable, but wisdom tells me this only leads to the chilling effect of breaking down the system as so much time being spent in the courts is always counter productive especially in a society that is defunked and needing a fresh breath of life blown into it to help revive its ailing economy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "especially in a society that is defunked" - I hope that was a pun, it works quite well anyway :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 11:58am
  
  Re:
  If I remember correctly, the site was an embedded video display site, not just a random link site.
  
  I don't think anybody was claiming that the links were random. Why would you make up something like that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Planespotter (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 1:02pm
  
  Re:
  and if the embedded videos where hosted by legitimate websites like Youtube what then? Is the site still liable or is Youtube?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:20am

"This just seems blatantly vindictive for no good reason."

i disagree with you on that last statement. The US government is doing this in a "last-ditch-effort" to be seen as the power of the planet. With companies leaving the US in droves the US is not taken very seriously anymore. So this attempt to have him extradicted is trying to show that they are still serious about things in the US......such as showing they no longer stand for what it preaches. but thats just my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:54am
  
  Re:
  The US is a failing world power. With leadership like we have here, passing any law that is put in front of them for the bargin basment price of a couple election contributions. Corporations using this to regulate competition out of the market. The patent system set up in a way that only corporations with a ton of money are capable of fighting off lawsuits. It all leads to monopoly status for a few corporations and a stifling of all competition and innovation. It also leads to the failure of those US corporations in one huge and tremendous collapse, as external competition, innovation, and adapatability whittle away at them.
  
  Kinda sad if you think about it, becoming a country whose politicians do anything to support the monopolies and incumbents is leading to this countries failure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:33am

What's good for the goose
Can another country extradite people out of the US for merely being a technical admin of a site that may be against the law in the other country?

As a US citizen, I hope it works both ways.

After all, if my government is doing it, it must be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nathan F (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re: What's good for the goose
  Our newspapers and TV News programs might be in for a big surprise then. To make matters worse a lot of them may have a local office in the country in question.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:50am

Wow, it seems just like the other day when people were lauding the US judicial system for its fair and reasoned judgment in the Rigtshaven case... oh, right it was just the other day. Funny how the overall fairness of US jurisprudence changes from one day to the next on Techdirt. Personally, I think Masnick should put his money where is mouth is and fund a legal defense for this poor, misunderstood lad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:12pm
  
  Re:
  The extradition request is from the DOJ - a part of the Executive Branch. The Righthaven judgement was from a federal judge - the Judiciary Branch.
  
  So no, not an inconsistent opinion at all, even if you do try to conflate the two branches under the term "jurisprudence". Nice try, though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 3:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh, Ok are you saying that the courts are righteous and fair and the DOJ evil then? 99% of the blockheads here don't know or care that Justice and the courts are different branches of government. The government is "bad" when there's an action or decision they disagree with and "good" when a decision like Rightshaven comes down. The bottom line is that people make sweeping generalizations about judges being on the take and agencies being corrupt when the only thing that has happened is that an action was taken or judgement entered they disagree with. Pretty pathetic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BeeAitch (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 3:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Good news: the price of tea in China is down considerably.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 5:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Let's clear this up for you:
      
      In the Righthaven case, we were lauding a judge, not the whole judicial branch.
      
      In this case, we're berating the DoJ, who are trying to force our laws outside of our sovereignty.
      
      Now, how are you so able to confuse the two of these? How are we 'blockheads' when you're the one that's trying to muddy the issue?
      
      Little troll, please take your drool and go home?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      99% of the blockheads here don't know or care that Justice and the courts are different branches of government.
      
      [citation needed]
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:54pm
  
  Re:
  Personally, I think
  
  Tough luck that nobody cares what you think.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:52am

Oh, more good news. Amy Klobuchar's streaming bill passed out of committee by unanimous vote. Wyden won't don't dare hold this one either, so break out the hankies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  Wyden won't don't dare hold this one either,
  
  For those of us who passed 'How to Argue 101', please provide a reason as to why you feel this way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeeAitch (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 3:31pm
  
  Re:
  Even better news: the price of tea in China is down considerably.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 11:00am

We're all getting more than a little tired of the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 16 Jun 2011 @ 11:37am

Local news for us here yesterday.

Source: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/sheffield_student_faces_jail_in_america_over_movie_clips_on_webs ite_1_3479234
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 11:43am

The simple fact is if it's not illegal where he's doing it, what right do we have to hold him to the laws of a country in which he is not a citizen? I mean quite frankly if you're going to give it validity then I maintain that to take it to extremes to demonstrate my point, every person that comes in contact with the internet is potentially legally responsible for knowing and abiding by the laws of every country of the world simultaneously in both action and intent. In short, it's unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re:
  > to take it to extremes to demonstrate my point,
  > every person that comes in contact with the
  > internet is potentially legally responsible for
  > knowing and abiding by the laws of every country
  > of the world simultaneously in both action and
  > intent. In short, it's unacceptable.
  
  Not only that, it would quickly lead to a situation where the internet and the people of the world are only as free as the most oppressive country on earth's law allows.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 2:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not only that, it would quickly lead to a situation where the internet and the people of the world are only as free as the most oppressive country on earth's law allows.
    
    That's the whole idea.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:06pm

Extradition from UK is explicitly prohibited if "The person has been, or could be, or will be sentenced to death".

It can't be ruled out given the pace USA is turning to a police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:35pm

Jurisdiction
It'll be interesting to see if Average Joe/FUD Buster/whatever he's calling himself now says about this. He was so insistent that the US was not attempting to apply its laws internationally by seizing domains because technically those domains were managed by a US company even though the site and all its business was operated and conducted overseas.

Now here we have a clearcut case of the US attempting to impose criminal liability on a man for doing something perfectly legal in his own country, but which nevertheless is counter to US law. The very act of attempting to extradite and charge him means that the US believes its laws apply to every person on earth.

Which is total bullshit.

And how long before other countries start trying to do the same to American citizens? Can Iran extradite a US citizen for "disrespecting Islam" or a woman for appearing on the internet "immodestly" sans burqa? Can China make the case that Americans who exercise free speech on the internet are violating Chinese law and therefore should be turned over for trial?

If not, why not? If we can do it, why can't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re: Jurisdiction
  And how long before other countries start trying to do the same to American citizens?
  
  Might makes right. America has invested in building the worlds strongest military for a reason. When some other country builds a bigger one, then they can be top dog. But, for now, it's America and America rules the world. So piss off, comrade.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AussieShaun, 16 Jun 2011 @ 8:12pm
  
  Re: Jurisdiction
  Too late. He's not the first...
  
  http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/05/06/1178390140855.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 8:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Jurisdiction
    ". A condition of his repatriation to Australia was that he never again re-enter the United States of America, a country he parenthetically had never visited before being extradited to it."
    
    ... We're a nation of laws but seriously? He'd NEVER VISITED the US and he got charged by the US Justice system? Wow...
    
    Just... Wow...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2011 @ 7:27am
  
  Re: Jurisdiction
  It'll be interesting to see if Average Joe/FUD Buster/whatever he's calling himself now says about this. He was so insistent that the US was not attempting to apply its laws internationally by seizing domains because technically those domains were managed by a US company even though the site and all its business was operated and conducted overseas.
  
  Now here we have a clearcut case of the US attempting to impose criminal liability on a man for doing something perfectly legal in his own country, but which nevertheless is counter to US law. The very act of attempting to extradite and charge him means that the US believes its laws apply to every person on earth.
  
  Which is total bullshit.
  
  And how long before other countries start trying to do the same to American citizens? Can Iran extradite a US citizen for "disrespecting Islam" or a woman for appearing on the internet "immodestly" sans burqa? Can China make the case that Americans who exercise free speech on the internet are violating Chinese law and therefore should be turned over for trial?
  
  If not, why not? If we can do it, why can't they?
  
  You're a savvy federal agent. Surely you understand how jurisdiction works. I've explained it to you before. As you know, you can break US law and be extradited to the US if certain conditions are met.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re: Jurisdiction
    You and your type scare the shit out of me. Not, because I personally fear you in way, shape or form, but because of how your misguided shortsightedness could screw up our future generations.
    
    You are so willing and eager to send your copyright bandwagons down those slippery slopes without even a single coherent thought of what impact it may have.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2011 @ 9:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
      You are so willing and eager to send your copyright bandwagons down those slippery slopes without even a single coherent thought of what impact it may have.
      
      I think they actually know and that's part of their motivation. They're just greedy and evil.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701, 17 Jun 2011 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re: Jurisdiction
    > As you know, you can break US law and be
    > extradited to the US if certain conditions
    > are met.
    
    And what are those "certain conditions", oh vague oracle?
    
    How exactly does the US Congress legally pass a law which purportedly binds the entire population of the world to follow it?
    
    If I'm a citizen of Indonesia, what principle of law requires me to abide by laws passed by the US Congress-- a legislative body in a country of which I am not a citizen, in which I have no representation, and cannot vote to affect?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2011 @ 9:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
      If I'm a citizen of Indonesia, what principle of law requires me to abide by laws passed by the US Congress-- a legislative body in a country of which I am not a citizen, in which I have no representation, and cannot vote to affect?
      
      They're collective known as the laws of physics, and describe the results of a bullet passing through your head or a cruise missile coming through in your window. Any more questions?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BeeAitch (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
        You can't answer the question asked. Why would anyone ask more questions? I think it would be better to wait until your mind has developed enough to answer a single question at a time before we hit you with more.
        
        Learn to walk before you run, Forrest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2011 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
        You can't answer the question asked.
        
        You just didn't like the answer, so you decided to start name-calling. Telling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BeeAitch (profile), 18 Jun 2011 @ 1:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
        Go ahead, tell, I don't care.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2011 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
        Go ahead, tell, I don't care.
        
        Heh, BeeAitch didn't even understand what "telling" meant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BeeAitch (profile), 18 Jun 2011 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
        ...and the immaturity I was pointing out went undetected by your underdeveloped brain. Go figure. Moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BeeAitch (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
        "If I'm a citizen of Indonesia, what principle of law requires me to abide by laws passed by the US Congress...?"
        
        I'll even help you out, AC. The answer is none.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 1:08pm

Citizens of USA usually think their laws apply internationally. When you explain to them the truth, they just call you a Communist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 5:32pm
  
  Re:
  Broad, sweeping accusations against people you do not know, do not understand, and are viewing through the lens of a corrupt government are why many of my friends despise foreigners. Don't take the time to know that what they're saying about us is pure bullshit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 8:37pm
  
  Re:
  Door's to your left.
  
  We aren't calling you a communist. But thinking that the citizens of the US are the same as the ruling elite is beyond stupid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 8:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Door's to your left.
    
    How dare he criticize us!
    
    But thinking that the citizens of the US are the same as the ruling elite is beyond stupid.
    
    I bet he even thinks that the U.S. has a government elected by the citizens.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 2:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I bet he even thinks that the U.S. has a government elected by the citizens.
      
      Nah, Every non-USA citizen knows that only Democratic non-Republic countries have purely citizen elected government.
      
      ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 1:24pm

Someone needs to sort out the laws, who's law is it anyway?
Once you start trying to apply US laws to else were whats to say that this cannot be reversed. Post something offensive or someone doesnt like in US and Russia, China or even Wales takes offence. Whats to say you cannot be found guilty and face consequences abroad. Be careful what you wish for. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re:
  Post something offensive or someone doesnt like in US and Russia, China or even Wales takes offence. Whats to say you cannot be found guilty and face consequences abroad.
  
  Then don't post anything. Simple. Problem solved.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 2:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Then don't post anything. Simple. Problem solved.
    
    I think that's what the government and it's corporate partners (especially the entertainment business ones) really want: To put the internet genie back in the bottle and turn it into a one-way broadcast medium where what people say can be more easily controlled. The only two-way ability they want is for people to be able to input credit card numbers to buy stuff.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 16 Jun 2011 @ 5:49pm

Is the US government going to seek the extradition of every person in the UK between the ages of 18 and 21 for the crime of underage drinking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris in Utah (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:23pm
  
  Re:
  Considering we cant even figure out the age of consent and methods of coherence from state to state? Top of that in most countries your allowed to hunt at the age of 12 but not have sex or drink. Scratch that, you can drink at 12 in some countries. Oh, and don't get me started on people being stuck in sex offender tent cities because they decided to fall in love with a freshmen in high-school there graduating year. Fun fact, it was 10 originally in English common law and gradually grew from there.
  
  It's amazing how many times I see the Eudophilia poster in the demotivationals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 2:45am
  
  Re:
  Actually its only a crime to supply alcohol to children under 18, its NOT an offence for them to drink alcohol if they are under 18 in UK, Australia, New Zealand (Not sure about Canada). Most kids are allowed alcohol with meals when they are teenagers ie: Wine, Mead, Port, etc
  
  This allows them knowledge on the responsible consumation of it. (or is supposed too)
  
  There was a huge crap-fight in the USA when Harry potter et.al had the audacity to drink Mead and eggnog when they were 15/16 years old. *eye roll*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 4:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    The legal age for drinking in restaurantsx is FIVE in the UK, provided it accompanies a meal asnd a parent accompanies them. You are legally allowed to enter a licensed venue after 7PM at the age of 14, purchase soft drinks at 16 and purchase alcohol at 18.
    
    Just so's you know. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Philly Bob (profile), 17 Jun 2011 @ 8:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    How many countries is the legal age of consent 14 years old? It's 16 in the US so we should extradite anyone from those countries and lock them up as child molesters. The world MUST see things our way or die!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701, 17 Jun 2011 @ 9:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    > This allows them knowledge on the responsible
    > consumation of it.
    
    I think you mean consumption. Consumation brings to mind a whole other thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bryan O'Doyle, 17 Jun 2011 @ 2:01pm

What IS the meaning of IS
From the article: "Running a site that users use to put up links and which doesn't host any actual content, is not seen as illegal in the UK."

Look, I put a link in a 'What's on your mind' field/ Share dealyhickey, on Facebook. I put that link there. I have no idea if Facebook has code which then goes and finds the material the link I shared goes to and then grabs that content and makes a copy on Facebook's servers, but somehow I doubt it.

So, a site which users can post links, and which does not host the content.

Holy shit, I might be extradited to the land of Jefferson, Franklin and Webster? Yeeeha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CoffeeGuy8975, 18 Jun 2011 @ 1:57pm

Extradition for links??!!

There's only one way to stop this madness:

If Everyone suddenly started putting links to online streams of American TV shows on their Facebook pages, blogs, etc. in protest.

One of the more convenient places to find links is here:
http://mrbrownee70.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]