How The US Gov't's Bogus Extradition Attempt Of Richard O'Dwyer Is Destroying Lives For No Reason
from the are-these-people-proud-of-themselves? dept
We've been covering the absolutely ridiculous attempt by the US government (mainly ICE and the Justice Department) to extradite former TVShack admin Richard O'Dwyer from the UK to the US to face criminal copyright charges. This is absolutely shameful for a variety of reasons, including the fact that sites quite similar to O'Dwyer's have been found to be perfectly legal in the UK, and the US appears to be using highly dubious claims in its reasoning for extradition. Even worse, the Justice Department and ICE are clamped up tight on this one, refusing to make any on-the-record comments about this attempt to take a kid, who doesn't appear to have done anything against the law, and drag him across the ocean against his will to put him on trial for criminal charges.TorrentFreak has the (admittedly, extremely biased) thoughts from O'Dwyer's mother on the whole situation. It's really heart-breaking to think that the US government can be so actively destroying this family, despite an incredibly weak case.
As the ICE agents left they shook his hand and said “Don’t worry Richard you won’t be going to America”. Actually “going to America” had never entered Richard’s head! The same day Richard closed down the website himself.You really should read the whole thing.
On attending with Richard to answer bail in May this year when we expected he would either be charged or questioned further, he was told by the Police that the criminal investigation in the UK had been dropped. He was then told that he was going to be rearrested as they now had a Warrant for his Extradition to the US!
[....]
I am most concerned about Richard being in jail in America with no access to his family or friends. Given the current economic climate along with the distance it would not be feasible for anyone to be able to visit him if he were in jail in the US. The idea of having to spend around £1500 or more in air fares and hotels etc. in order to visit my son for one hour in a US jail is ridiculous and prohibitive. This is in total breach of his Human Rights, rights which other non – British subjects are afforded in the UK even some who have allegedly committed serious crimes
[....]
From a personal perspective this trauma has totally taken over my life. I hold a responsible senior position as a Specialist Nurse for Terminally ill children. My job requires me to advise other professionals and parents regarding strong medications for children.
I need to concentrate on my job and to be able to function at a high level. Since this nightmare came into our family I have been unable to work due to being off sick due to the stress. My concentration and level of functioning have been greatly affected to the degree that I would not be safe to do my job.
And, really, who is this helping? At all? TVShack didn't host any of the content. It's still very much out there, and tons of others are linking to that very same content, much of which you can find with a simple Google search. So destroying this family doesn't stop or even slow down the infringement. It does raise serious questions about the US/UK extradition procedures, which seem to (contrary to the official claims) totally ignore the fact that similar sites have been found legal in the UK already.
When this case first came to light, I reached out to folks at both the Justice Department and Homeland Security to get comments, and both refused, pointing me only to press releases about domain seizures. Frankly, anyone involved in this case should be sickened and ashamed of themselves right now. This is not some criminal mastermind. This was a kid who built a simple website, which didn't host any infringing content, and is now being railroaded and destroyed by a system because a few folks in Hollywood say so. The fact that ICE now doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's doing this at the behest of a few entertainment industry giants, who don't want to adapt to the changing marketplace, just makes the whole thing even more disgusting.
This has nothing to do with protecting "rightsholders." Such rightsholders could go after those uploading content themselves if they wanted to. This seems to be a case where the existing administration is trying to destroy this family for no good reason at all, other than Hollywood told them to do it. Sickening.
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, doj, extradition, ice, jurisdiction, richard o'dwyer
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope the day is coming (maybe nearer to elections) where all of these people who supported these horrible laws will have that encounter with the law they felt they were above.
Not that this justifies the anguish and torment others are going through now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biased? O rly?
While I'm at it, Mike, something written by his mother will clearly be biased. However, in spite of all bias, even if Richard isn't a real good boy (hellooo, 23 yr-olds go drink with friends and do stupid things) and he's an adult, he is starting his life. This will ruin him. For nothing. And it could be ANY1. We've seen how MAFIAA sues nurses, retired grandpas, kids, mothers and whatever they can in their quest for copyright.
Biased? Maybe. Wrong? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand the UK
This is about a slippery a slope as there is and we do not need to go there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't understand the UK
at least according to my memory of my British friend's explanation of it. i don't really remember Why. probably a trade deal or something ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't understand the UK
It is one thing to violate a foreign law on foreign soil, but to be prosecuted for violating a foreign law from our own soil is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't understand the UK
Basically Bush and Blair signed this treaty after 9/11 to be able to extradite terrorists back and forth but both knew from the get go that the American part of the treaty (aka obligation to expedite extradition of US citizens to the UK) was 100% unenforceable under US law and would always remain so.
But Blair signed it anyway (he always was Bush's b*tch) and since then only ever heard of this "anti terrorist" treaty being used against bankers, hackers and torrent tracker owners
Though got a feeling the treaty will be scrapped by the British within the next year or two, quite a few politicos have spoken out against it recently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't understand the UK
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
——Second Continental Congress, 1776
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand the UK
Dear Madame Secretary of State:
Her Majesty's government are in receipt of your July correspondence....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America's new slogan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Army
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The administration has a long way to go I'd say...........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now we know it wasn't a misperception. America really does have an arrogant belief that their rules should apply everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the war has begun and the 1st shots were fired at all of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government Thugs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He pretty blatantly flipped the bird to law enforcement and is now being punished.
If you want to say his family is being hurt, that's his own fault. If you want to blame others, how about looking in the mirror for creating a culture where his behavior is encouraged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "terrorizing" of the family is amusing to say the least. Almost anyone charged with a crime will feel the same way. Justice is not decided based on how much it will cost a family to fly to see the inmate in jail. That just doesn't happen.
Further, if he is convicted, the UK government can ask to have him transferred to a UK prison to serve the sentence. The family can then save their precious shillings for another pint.
It's whining, plain and simple, from someone who thumbed their nose at the law and finally got nailed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did you forget that part? Kinda ruins your whole argument.
Unless you think US law is the law of the world. Guess you got problems with geography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An entity on foreign soil is running a business on foreign soil that is legal on said foreign soil.
They have one pipeline into our 'soil' (the .com).
ICE seizes that pipeline.
The entity continues running its legal-on-its-own-soil business on its own soil.
So... now we say that they're guilty of violating our laws and should be punished here?
I said it before, and I'll say it again... our laws STOP at our borders (with the obvious exception that our own citizens are subject to our laws no matter where they go). No wonder the rest of the world views us as imperialistic thugs.
You know... I'm sure you're guilty of violating at least one or two tenets of Sharia law... how about we extradite you to one of the countries that runs on it and let them punish you accordingly. Sound good to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You bring him to the city gate ... I'll bring the stones ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The website (under another domain) continued to be available in the US. Clearly, shutting down the domain was not enough to stop the illegal activity. Oh yeah, legal in the UK, not legal for someone offering services in the US.
The US laws do stop at the border. But when your website / business crosses the border, you are subject to the laws.
Don't think so? Consider EU privacy laws and US based websites. Think really hard about it.
Stop trying to protect a pirate. He screwed up, he thumbed his nose at the US authorities, and now he is getting ready for his date with Bubba.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right that businesses have to comply with local laws... but guess what happens when they don't... they get kicked out. If the president of the Mitsubishi Corporation (assuming we don't own them yet) makes cars that criminally fail to meet our requirements, we don't demand he/she be extradited over here to face trial... we just block the import of the product. Again, see my comment about the Great Firewall of China.
Perchance are you talking about this? http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/03/16/non-eu-websites-must-operate-under-eu-privacy-laws/
E xactly how is that going to be enforced? If Facebook 'thumbs its nose' at the EU's demands for compliance, is the EU going to demand the CEO be sent over for trial? And how do you think the US would react to demands for extradition of one of our citizens to face trial over running a website in a way we find legal? Just because the EU says we have to comply, doesn't mean shit if we disagree.
You really do think that everyone in the world should follow our laws, don't you? How often do you thumb your nose at those extremist Muslims who think that YOU (personally, you specifically) should convert to their faith, pray exactly how they say, or face death? Every time you do, I want you to hear my voice in your head saying “stop trying to defend a Christian… you thumbed your nose at Sharia and Allah and now you’re getting ready for your date with a rock”.
Every time you think our laws should apply to the whole world, I want you to think about how EXACTLY like those extremist Muslims you are when they demand that we adopt Sharia law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So basically, you think that the entire internet is subject to US laws since pretty MUCH all websites are available everywhere in the world.
That kind of thinking won't end up well since ANY country can claim that.
Perhaps there is some country somewhere that believes the MPAA and RIAA are involved in illegal activity and since their websites are viewable, they should face those charges in that country.
...and now he is getting ready for his date with Bubba.
Careful, your true colors are showing through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd love to know how you expect websites run by individuals to block themselves from being available in specific countries. Blocking access by country is not as trivial a thing to setup as it sounds and are easily countered by proxies anyway.
There's a reason it's called the World Wide Web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep saying that, but the idea that merely putting a site on the internet subjects a person to US jurisdiction is asinine.
Why doesn't this work in reverse? Why aren't Americans subject to every law in every other country when they put up websites? If I criticize the Holocaust online or say I love Nazis, can I be arrested and extradited to Germany for violating their laws against Holocaust denial and Nazi glorification? Do I lose my 1st Amendment rights to free speech because I said it on the internet and it's "available" in Germany?
Your entire argument is specious, yet you keep repeating it like a mantra that's true just because you say so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> are subject to our laws no matter where they go)
Even that's not true. It's against the law to smoke pot everywhere in the US (even if some cities don't go out of thewir way to enforce it). But if you travel to a country where it is legal to smoke it, you're perfectly free to do so. You're not bound by US law on the matter.
Back when abortion was illegal, the same thing applied. People who could afford to would get on planes and travel to countries where it was legal and have their abortions. Nothing illegal about it.
There are only a very few US laws that purport to bind US citizens worldwide. Laws against bribing local officials to gain a business advantage and laws against sex tourism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> and yet he kept doing it.
Well, sure, if you ignore the whole bit about the British courts having ruled that this sort of thing is LEGAL IN BRITAIN.
Jesus wept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Check that out, it's called logic. Try it sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> enforcement and is now being punished.
Since when is it a crime to "flip the bird" at law enforcement?
And if he flipped it to anyone, he flipped it only to *American* law enforcement. Law enforcement in a country he does not belong to or live in and whose laws he has no obligation to follow.
His own country told him his actions WERE PERFECTLY LEGAL.
In any sane world, that should be enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm...I think you have that backwards. The "bird flipping" was done to him - by LE. He was not breaking any laws of his own country.
And that "mirror" you refer to? Look in your own - what kind of culture are your kind creating where creativity, freedom of expression, and the kind act of sharing are stifled, silenced and restrained - and now considered "Illegal". That's against our civil liberties and against human nature. Your misguided whine-fest will never alter those facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, he was not breaking the law by keeping his site up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Precedent
From the conspiracy side I think (based on what I have read) that if the US government can get what it wants in this case that it can move forward with other much larger targets (which it actually wants), but they need to get their foot in the door first before attempting the same thing on a larger target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Precedent
threadception!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The land of freedom and liberty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Petition for Richard O'Dwyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm...no
Ummm....no. This is a kid who was helping folks steal illegal content, whether he was hosting it or not. It's called being an accessory to a crime. Yeah, the U.S. government is massively overreaching here, but let's not pretend this guy is totally innocent in all this. He was helping people steal content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am very enjoyed for this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey your site is really great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the contents you mentioned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice Job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]