US Can Extradite UK Student For Copyright Infringement, Despite Site Being Legal In The UK

from the scary-scary-stuff dept

Fri, Jan 13th 2012 10:10am — Mike Masnick

Want to understand just how insane things may get under SOPA/PIPA? Just take a look at what's already happening under today's laws. Back in 2010, one of the first websites that Homeland Security's ICE (Immigrations & Customs Enforcement) group seized was TVShack.net. TVShack was a site that collected links to TV shows. Certainly, many of those shows were likely to be infringing -- but TVShack did not host the content at all, it merely linked to it. Richard O'Dwyer, the guy who ran the site, was a student building an interesting project over in the UK. However, the US Department of Justice decided that he was not only a hardened criminal, but one who needed to be tried on US soil. Thus, it began extradition procedures. Even worse, nearly identical sites in the UK had already been found legal multiple times -- with the court noting that having links to some infringing content was certainly not criminal copyright infringement. That makes things even more ridiculous, because extradition is only supposed to be allowed for activities that are criminal in both the US and the UK.

But, seriously, think about how insane this is. With all the problems in the world, the US was spending time trying to extradite a UK student to the US, because he set up a site that had links to some infringing material. Is this really the best use of US law enforcement's time?

O'Dwyer has been fighting the extradition attempt... but today, unfortunately, a UK judge ruled against him.

District Judge Purdy said in his ruling: "There are said to be direct consequences of criminal activity by Richard O'Dwyer in the USA albeit by him never leaving the north of England.

"Such a state of affairs does not demand a trial here if the competent UK authorities decline to act and does, in my judgment, permit one in the USA."

He added: "I reject all challenges advanced to this request. No bars or other challenge being raised or found, I send the case to the Secretary of State."

O'Dwyer can and almost certainly will appeal this decision. But this is just ridiculous. And this is under existing laws. Just think what happens under SOPA/PIPA -- which are even more targeted at foreign sites. Do we really want the US government going around the world, dragging kids from their homes and taking them back to the US to throw them in jail... because they set up a web page with some links on it?

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, pipa, protect ip, richard o'dwyer, sopa, uk, us
Companies: tv-links, tvshack

159 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jay (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:39am

The implications...
The implications of this are much further than we can understand here. This sets up shop for Britain to try other "criminals" in the US for abusing copyright law. And it's all being done on the US taxpayer dime. Think about if Scotland had a cammer upload a video of Avatar onto the internet. Now, they have to worry about being extradited to the US. And they get to go to federal prison for a non violent crime.

So I have to ask... If the Hollywood movie industry is so great, why the hell are they looking to criminalize filesharing when they've made more money than anyone else? It makes no sense how one industry has so much power that they can destroy lives for nothing other than sharing a file on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: The implications...
  Sharing a link to a file on the internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:33am
  
  Re: The implications...
  We could save alot of money by declaring that everything outside the US is a Federal Prison--I mean, we're already paying tons of money to other countries...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:13pm
    
    Re: Re: The implications...
    Wasn't that the plot of Johnny English?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:38am
  
  Re: The implications...
  Exactly. This is an extremely dangerous precedent for US citizens.
  
  In Thailand you can go to jail for insulting the monarch. So if I defame the Thai monarch in my blog, can Thailand extradite me?
  
  In Switzerland it is illegal to publicly defame foreign heads of state. So if I defame the Thai monarch in my blog, can SWITZERLAND extradite me?
  
  Basically it says that everyone in world is subject to the most restrictive law on the books, regardless of citizenship or country of residence. Imagine that you now have to abide by the rules of Yemen, China, and North Korea, all at the same time!
  
  It continues this trend of making everyone a criminal so that anyone can be prosecuted for something.
  
  It's bad policy. The US is in the wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:58am
    
    Re: Re: The implications...
    To be fair, it has always been US policy that other countries laws don't matter, so you should be safe.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeff R, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The implications...
      Comments like this make me wish for a "depressing" button in addition to insightful and funny.. :-/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Machin Shin (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The implications...
        Maybe if enough of us protest we can get one added. I know I have gone to click the "depressing" button more than once myself only to find it missing.
        
        Of course I think they should add a troll rating system as well. Maybe like the star system just using trolls?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ProudAmerica, 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The implications...
      You are absolutely right. Not only has virtually no American ever been extradited regardless of the crime (including raping children in Asian countries), even if an American blatantly breaks laws in foreign countries, brags about it, like how dare the foreign government charge them with a crime! With a $600 billion per year in the military, we basically do whatever to whoever we want in the world, then get all pissy when other countries resent us.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701, 14 Jan 2012 @ 1:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The implications...
        > Not only has virtually no American ever been extradited
        > regardless of the crime (including raping children in Asian
        > countries), even if an American blatantly breaks laws in
        > foreign countries, brags about it
        
        Google 'Bruce Beresford-Redman'. Kinda undermines your claim.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - pixelpusher220 (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:00am
    
    Re: Re: The implications...
    Eh, US wanting to bring someone to the US that 'harms' US companies? Not a terribly bad thing. Not great, but I can think of lots of ways this isn't a big deal.
    
    Britain agreeing with that for their own citizen? For something they've deemed legal? That's amazingly bad.
    
    But the precedent it sets for anyone to do similar charges is bad all around.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - mike allen (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The implications...
      We really have no choice under the treaty signed with the U.S under the last government, the US only has to ask for a citizen to be extradited and no proof has to be shown to our courts or even charges brought. Only that this person is suspect. what is unfair is that if it was the other way round we would have to prove guilt to a U.S court before extradition.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ben (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The implications...
        "the US only has to ask for a citizen to be extradited and no proof has to be shown to our courts or even charges brought. Only that this person is suspect"
        
        So like the Digital Economy Act and SOPA? Sigh.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - G Thompson (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 7:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The implications...
        Actually the British people and current government do have a choice. Break the treaty!
        
        What is the USA going to do? Withhold any financial aid to UK? refuse to pay debts owed to UK? They are already doing that. The US economy is so bad at moment any threats the USA states can only EVER now be backed up by military action. They have no ability to economically sanction any country any more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The implications...
      I bet you are fine, with extraditing your CIA spies and people who stole trade secrets of Airbus to give Boeing an unfair edge when it came to competing for various large contracts.
      
      wait, no you are not? it only ever applies for US companies? I see... go fuck yourself hypocritical bastard and keep forever wondering, why most of the world hate the USA
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Machin Shin (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The implications...
        What is sad is that it has reached the point that most of the world hates the USA government. This includes the people living here in the USA. When I was little I was proud of what this country used to be. As I got older I realized that the country I used to be so proud of has been doing lately and it makes me sick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The implications...
        I know its sad (I wrote the previous post) When I was a child I wanted to live in the USA more the anywhere else, but as I grow older and started asking questions, it became more and more obvious, that all of this is mainly make believe made in hollywood and the reality behind that is utter ruthlessness and hypocrisy.
        
        Yes, I hate the US government for what it has become and what it has made out of the USA, but it does not stop there. I'm from germany and we suffer under the same set of corrupt imbeciles in our own government and additionaly the giant politician trash heap EU. It has come now to the pointz, where I hate this entire world build of lies and deceit clad in righteousness and alleged moral superiority.
        
        The real sad part is, regardless, what you want and believe, there is no place anymore to escape this totalitarian tendencies, because its either already there or banging on the doors via international treaties, obligations or whatever big business likes to have.
        
        And the real sad part is, that all of this is documented, all can be read up on if people would care to do so, if people started to think for themselves, rather then spouting the "official" line, which is only lies, lies and even more lies. In a way mankind deserves this, because in these with freely available information, not knowing is not an excuse, its just an alternative way of saying "not *wanting* to know".
        
        Yes, I absolutely hate the world which has emerged now and the people who are to stupid, to lazy to see it and who are either comfortable with the status quo or in their ignorance believe it could never effect them. but they are wrong. look at the economic data all around the world, troop movement, political rethoric, this year it will get worse, much worse and you don't have to be a fortune teller to see it.
        
        And politicians have nothing better to do then to bitch about useless make believe from hollywood that gets shared unauthorized and people have nothing better to do then follow the latest gossip of worthless celebrities, while around them civilization itself starts to unravel.
        
        Mankind is truly a sad pathetic race.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ProudAmerican, 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The implications...
        Unfortunately you are right. For decades, the US stood as a beacon to liberty and hope. We really did have a higher moral standing than most countries. Not perfect, not even close, but stacked up to all the world power throughout history, we were pretty good. Since the 1950s, mainly since McCarthyism, my country has been on a decline in morality (not talking about porn or sex, about being consistent with your own rules - and applying them fairly to other countries), e.g., not being the aggessor in wars, not enacting repressive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The implications...
      Eh, US wanting to bring someone to the US that 'harms' US companies? Not a terribly bad thing. Not great, but I can think of lots of ways this isn't a big deal.
      
      I agree with your final 2 statements, but your first assertion is way off. This is a HUGE deal. We're talking about extraditing a college student for setting up a website that links to other websites. This activity is perfectly legal in the country that he lives in. There is absolutely no "harm" that can be shown to any US company. This student participating in legal activity in his sovereign country of residence now faces the possibility of serving time in a US federal prison. How can you say that isn't a big deal? Extradition is setup to prosecute malicious intentional harm against another country. No harm could ever be shown in this case, if anything it's a civil matter not criminal, and it isn't against the law where the activity occurred. This is a very big deal and it is completely outrageous!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TN, 14 Jan 2012 @ 1:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The implications...
        So ummmm to ask the bleeding obvious, what was the judge on when making this decision?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lauriel (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The implications...
        Dude, he's got the US Government on one side, and a 19 year old kid on the other. He doesn't have to be on anything - he's just not brave enough to follow his conscience.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The implications...
        This activity is perfectly legal in the country that he lives in.
        
        For that matter, how can they legitimately claim he's committed a crime even in the US? Maybe - MAYBE - someone could have a cause for civil action against him, but criminal? For posting links? Under what law?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 5:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The implications...
      "Eh, US wanting to bring someone to the US that 'harms' US companies? "
      
      Citation very much needed on how actual harm is caused by file sharing at all, let alone by someone posting links to other sites.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:44am
    
    Re: Re: The implications...
    It's called an 'extradition treaty,' and if there isn't one in place then no worries. Even if there is, extradition is dependent upon the conditions of the treaty.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 7:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The implications...
      Even if there is, extradition is dependent upon the conditions of the treaty.
      
      Apparently not, since the treaty with the UK requires the action to be criminal in both countries but they're extraditing him anyway (unless Mike is mistaken about something). If this story is accurate, extradition depends on some unwritten conditions not available to the interested party.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: The implications...
  And they get to go to federal prison for a non violent crime.
  
  You mean like tax evaders, embezzlers and corrupt politicians?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DH's Love Child (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:44am
    
    Re: Re: The implications...
    You mean like tax evaders, embezzlers and corrupt politicians?
    
    I think those are synonymous.
    
    Although, I can't remember the last time a corrupt politician actually spent time in federal prison.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The implications...
      Ever here of Rod Blagojevich? Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with the real world happenings.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Loki, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The implications...
      (Former Illinois Governor George) Ryan reported to the Federal Prison Camp in Oxford, Wisconsin, on November 7, 2007.[38][39] He was transferred on February 29, 2008, to a medium security facility in Terre Haute, Indiana, after Oxford changed its level of medical care and stopped housing inmates over 70 years old
      
      Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich: On Wednesday, December 7, 2011, Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison. He reports there in March.
      
      Both were convicted on corruption charges.
      
      Mind you this is a state that threatened someone with up to 75 years in prison (for "violating" wiretapping laws) for filming a cop in public.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:40am
  
  Re: The implications...
  The US already has the world's highest incarceration rate. The government realizes that pretty soon it won't have any more citizens to put in prison, so the ones in power are just doing some foward-thinking here. Once you run out of citizens, how else are you going to keep putting people in prison if you don't go out-of-country. They need to start now so that by the time US citizens are all in prison, the framework for extraditing foreigners is in place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:16am

tvshack.net was awesome
It was the only good site that had an XBMC plugin that worked on my original XBox for watching streaming TV shows over the internet.

It allowed my kids to watch plenty of old TV shows using a simple interface on the TV in the living room. If only there was a service out there that provided such a comprehensive solution (think: Spotify for TV) and that was easily integrated with any device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:21am

Do we really want the US government going around the world, dragging kids from their homes and taking them back to the US to throw them in jail... because they set up a webpage with some links on it?

The FUD here is absolutely breathtaking Masnick. Please cite the portion of SOPA and/or Protect IP that you claim will lead to this absurd assertion you make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:24am
  
  Re:
  Talk about missing the point. This is being done without SOPA and SOPA is even more draconian than our current laws. So even more people will become criminals worldwide. Can you imagine a nation of 300 million people attempting to imprison a world of 7 billion people?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:24am
  
  Re:
  Who needs to cite SOPA/PIPA? This is happening without those laws being in force. Those laws just make the legal environment even more hostile to people who are not doing anything wrong in their own sovereign countries!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  Apparently they don't even need SOPA to be able to pull that off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:27am
  
  Re:
  The FUD here is absolutely breathtaking Masnick. Please cite the portion of SOPA and/or Protect IP that you claim will lead to this absurd assertion you make.
  
  Er... how is it "absurd" when it's happening right in this case?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Extradition is available as the result of an extradition treaty signed by the UK and the US. The treaty was executed in 2003, ratified by the UK in 2004, and by the US in 2006.
    
    Extradition is a rare event, so it would seem likely there is more involved in this matter than first meets the eye.
    
    As for your constant reference to matters such as this being "legal" in the UK, if this was true then under the terms of the treaty the individual would not be subject to extradition.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Acslawarecrooks, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sorry you really need to read the report, he operated a site containing links only, in the UK this has been found to be legal many times
      
      I a really disgusted with my Government over this and will be writing to my MP again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701, 14 Jan 2012 @ 1:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Extradition is a rare event, so it would seem likely there
      > is more involved in this matter than first meets the eye.
      
      Ah, yes. This is Typical TAM Tactic #42:
      
      When faced with having to defend the indefensible, pretend there's a whole raft of details that are mysteriously missing from the news report, and which, if known, would completely justify what otherwise appears to be a gross abuse of power by either the entertainment industry or its government puppets.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    Er... it's absurd in that were SOPA/Protect IP in effect, they'd have no bearing on this matter whatsoever. Derp.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And the point of the article was that decrying the abuses that will be suffered under SOPA/PIPA when abuses are already being perpetrated under current law completely bypassed you in your ravenous need to tell Mike he's wrong. Dude, put down the pipe and start paying more attention. It would do you some good.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Arthur (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:03pm
      
      WTF?
      And you come to that conclusion how? They have no bearing as long as you completely ignore the fact that SOPA/Protect IP will make this sort of abuse much, much easier and much more common. Well, you are ignoring that, so your comment kind of makes sense.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's Love Child (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:29am
  
  Re:
  Nope, you're right. They don't need SOPA/PIPA because they're already doing it. I see how this works.
  
  Tell me with a straight face that our government, which has a long and documented history of distorting laws to suit their needs, won't use the additional power given to them by SOPA/PIPA to do exactly this sort of thing. If you honestly think they won't either you must be living under a rock.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Since Masnick can't seem to find the applicable portion of the law that would allow this to happen, please feel free to cite it yourself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How about the portion that makes streaming content a criminal offense rather than merely a civil offense. Now that it's criminal, we get to extradite more people.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't aid and abet illegal copyright infringement and you won't have to worry.
        
        See? Problem solved. That was easy. You're welcome.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, you don't aid or abet copyright infringement at all when you stream content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Digitari, 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I wont infringe, Just give me a list of your content that YOU own IP for, see how easy that is. Oh and of course if I am to be a private Police force, you have to PAY me to take the time to do it. IP Protection is NOT free
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why are members of the internet ecosystem any less responsible for illegal activity than members of the banking ecosystem (money laundering, etc)?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2012 @ 2:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one said they weren't, but they continually try to go after third and even fourth parties for the infringement. Why go after someone posting a link instead of the person posting the actual file? That's like going after the teller for the manager's malfeasance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That was a pretty good change of subject you did there. You asked for language where SOPA would cause more problems. I gave that to you, and yet here you are ignoring the fact that SOPA increases that problem.
        
        Mike said: Do we really want the US government going around the world, dragging kids from their homes and taking them back to the US to throw them in jail... because they set up a webpage with some links on it?
        
        You said: "Please cite the portion of SOPA and/or Protect IP that you claim will lead to this absurd assertion you make."
        
        I pointed it out, and suddenly you're saying "don't break the law and you're fine". That's all fine and good. Don't break the law. But that ignores what you said. You wanted to know where SOPA can cause the absurd scenario that foreigners can be extradited for breaking US law. Here it is. Someone streams something and now they're breaking US criminal law (note, not necessarily the law of the land they live in).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sadly, AC beat me to the punch. The streaming language simply elevates the offense of illegal streaming to that of illegal downloading. It is already a crime. Read the bill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was actually referring to the public performance section. That had to be added to section 17.506(a)1(B).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 5:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "illegal copyright infringement "
        
        Illegal in which country, asshole? Despite the ideas of many of the idiots who reside on your particular patch of dirt, the US is not the world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Streaming content is already able to be charged as a criminal offense. All the legislation proposes to do is increase the current penalty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:
  Ummm...PIPA/SOPA create an even larger net to include more and more linking 'pirates' around the world, ergo using current laws/treaties to extradite 'criminals'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:56am
  
  Re:
  The US government is doing it without SOPA and Protect IP, so how is his assumption absurd, please explain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    The US government is applying existing US law to the operator of a US registered domain over which it holds criminal jurisdiction. SOPA/Protect IP does nothing to change that for the better or the worse. I'm still waiting for someone to offer up language from the bill, but as with most of your rhetoric it levitates without any support of the facts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  Did you even read the article?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes. Did you read the bill? Maybe you'd like to take a crack at citing the language.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 9:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Troll is typical...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re:
  "The FUD here is absolutely breathtaking Masnick. Please cite the portion of SOPA and/or Protect IP that you claim will lead to this absurd assertion you make."
  
  This is happening under already-existing law, boy.
  I didn't know you couldn't read as well as couldn't think.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jollygreengiant (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:51pm
  
  Re:
  What FUD? The story is fact. Are you claiming that under SOPA/PIPA, fewer sites will be found incriminating, and fewer people will be at risk of extradition? If so, why bother? Just cancel the vote and the **AA can go home in a better position !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 5:48pm
  
  Re:
  The entire bill is a pile of shite, with all those loose definitions of what constitutes an illegal act and the poorly defined consequences that could happen if you don't heed the equally ethereal warnings given.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tom Anderson, 14 Jan 2012 @ 12:08am
  
  Re:
  Such a dumb response. This article is about the US government dragging this kid from his home in Northern England. Your response asks for text in SOPA that proves that kids can be dragged from their homes. Text is not law, the way that judges interpret laws is the law. The US and UK both operate on the basis of common law, which is why if SOPA does not state that kids cannot be dragged from their homes, then it does nothing to protect people from doing things that have been found to be legal in their country.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2012 @ 6:49am
  
  Re:
  So nice - now watch what happens the first time someone else does it to an American.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freeweaver, 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:30am
  
  Re:
  AnonC,
  
  Some of it may well be factually incorrect however, the fundamental point is very clear and troubling.
  
  As for it being FUD, oh no, not at all. The fact that the courts are even willing to consider the extradition, let alone actually doing it suggests that everyone should be experiencing a bit of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt about the system.
  
  In relation to SOPA/PIPA. If current US laws, and the consequent "charges" already compel the extradition of English nationals for the linking of content, even though English law permits such linking, then the introduction of even more "laws" in the US will allow for an even more comprehensive ability to demand extradition.
  
  There is no FUD spreading in this article, the fear uncertainty and doubt is being spread by the corruptness of western states and their supposed "laws". Not the reporting of it.
  
  Please be more careful when using such a term.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:53pm
  
  Re:
  Why should he need to cite the portion of laws that are in the legislation process to back up his point, when his point is that it already happens under current laws?
  
  SOPA and PIPA only strengthen the enforcement of such stupid, draconian, bullshit laws, as well as broadening their reach.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:22am

There are scary times we live in
This case is ridiculous no matter how you look at it. We are spending a lot of money to turn a UK college kid into a criminal all for links to copyright infringing content. What is even scarier is the UK government is allowing foreign nations to fine and/or imprison their people. And the absolutely scariest part is that by inference, the US will gladly hand over US citizens to foreign nations for violating foreign laws on the internet. Can you imagine being handed over to North Korea, China or any number of middle eastern countries for a website you run here in the US? You talk about sending a chill on innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's Love Child (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:33am
  
  Re: There are scary times we live in
  Or, you know the UK. Remember they have some wacky libel laws there. How the US can seriously work so hard to extradite a UK citizen to the US for this while saying they won't reciprocate with UK on their libel laws is ridiculous. I wonder if there isn't a backroom conversation going on right now to, um, remedy this imbalance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Dan (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:15am
    
    Re: Re: There are scary times we live in
    We already have a law telling the courts not to approve the extradition in such a case.
    
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100811/00361310577.shtml
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DH's Love Child (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: There are scary times we live in
      My point was that perhaps the US government was making a deal with the UK to rescind this particular order in return for them making an example of this kid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:25am
    
    Re: Re: There are scary times we live in
    Libel is a tort. It is not a crime. Tortfeasors are not subject to extradition under the UK/US extradition treaty. Criminal defendants may be extradited for felonious offenses.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:57am
    
    Re: Re: There are scary times we live in
    Check out that good ol' extradition treaty. The US is under no obligations, per the treaty, to extradite in return. Your government signed your rights away to the US.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:35am
  
  Re: There are scary times we live in
  It is getting very bad.Maybe it is time for a Revolt ?
  I no longer care about the leadership of my Country as that leadership obviously does not care about any of us.
  I am turning 56 in 2 weeks and I feel real bad for all of you who are much younger.I am so sorry we Adults did not speak up enough to try and stop this but it has been coming for a long time.My Dad's Generation were the leaders in the early 70's and they have frakked up this Country so bad I wonder if it will ever get good.
  SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ICE = WAR !!!
  You smart youngsters should make sure that the dirt behind these Bills and the dirt behind ICE is wikileaked for all to see and learn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ray, 14 Jan 2012 @ 3:01am
  
  Re: There are scary times we live in
  As I understand it the way the 2003 arrangement works is that the U.S. can take people without submitting evidence to a U.K. court/judge while the U.K. has to apply to a U.S. court to extradite to here. Its a one way street.
  Whatever happened to 'innocent until proved guilty' and freedom of speech. The action by U.S. authorities was akin to many dictatorships of previous times, Germany in particular. Perhaps it should be renamed the United States of Corporate Interests!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:27am
    
    Re: Re: There are scary times we live in
    And you have to remember, while our dumb poodle government signed up to this, who suggested this blatant imbalance...?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrWilson, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:23am

If he loses on appeal and ultimately gets extradited and stands trial, I can't see any result that isn't a lose-lose situation for everyone.

He gets his studies interrupted and his time wasted and his finances screwed. The US taxpayer foots the bill for a farcical trial. The court system has real cases that don't get dealt with. And websites that do the exact same thing that this guy's website did will continue to operate and the entertainment industry won't get that precious extra sales that they're deluding themselves into thinking will happen if you just eliminate another pirate site. Even if the guy gets it dismissed after he's in the states, it's still a hardship just to get extradited. Even if, in his best scenario, he gets some kind of settlement for malicious prosecution (not that it would happen...), the taxpayer is still footing the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:25am

What's next? Links to a site that has links to a site that links to infringing content constitutes infringement? Opening an email that has links to infringing content constitutes infringement? These seem extreme, but so did the current norm before a few choice court rulings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:44am
  
  Re:
  Well how about sending an e-mail with a link to infringement? That way when you e-mail starts to send out spam because you got hacked it is not only a hassle but means jail time as well.
  
  I mean, we all know that an IP address is enough to go after someone so surely an e-mail from your account must mean you are a filthy pirate who needs to do hard time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    You don't seriously suggest that example rises to meet the definition of "dedicated to infringing activity" and "having no other significant lawful purpose" do you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well I don't think so but based on past actions, I can certainly see the **AA's believing so.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps, but they have to get a Federal judge to make that ruling first.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ProudAmerican, 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It doesn't. But it sure paves the way in removing liberty and civil rights and replacing them with repression and control.
      
      So what role do you see yourself in the new order? Mass executioner? Secret police? Or just a party goon mindlessly cheering the new repressors?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
timmaguire42 (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:27am

It seems the long arm of the law
is getting even longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:34am

So now the United States Government wants to extradite suspects in other countries for violating laws that are only illegal in the United States?

It's like if you live in the United Kingdom where copyright is legal and the United States Government wants to extradite you to the United States for something you did in the United Kingdom. In order to prosecute you or sue you, you have to be doing something illegal in the country you live in.

The United States cannot prosecute you for something you did in the United Kingdom. They're trying to subvert the laws of the United Kingdom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:40am
  
  Re:
  I would say the UK system is rather doing it for them...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:57am
  
  Re:
  If he was using U.S. copyright material's the case is heard on U.S. soil. It doesn't matter where he lives, it's the country where the material's were copyright protected.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    So...If I steal a Ford (an American car) in Spain from a German owner and I am from Russian...what happens? Do I get chopped to pieces and they send parts of me to all of those countries? Or do I get shipped directly to Guantanamo (since, apparently, the US now owns the world or something)?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're sent to Gitmo while they try to figure out how to keep all those bits of you alive so you can stand trial in each of those countries.
      
      I hear the weather is nice there, though. Far better than the north of England!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Dan (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wrong argument. The argument is supposed to be that, because people are using the site in the US, the copyright infringement is occurring in the US (and thus is subject to US law).
    
    I think that only makes sense if they are prosecuting the site's visitors who are in the US, but that's the argument.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If he was using U.S. copyright material's the case is heard on U.S. soil. It doesn't matter where he lives, it's the country where the material's were copyright protected.
    
    [citation needed]
    
    I am very interested in seeing where it's stated that the laws of the United States are applicable to the entire population of the world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Also, if such a thing is true.....why do we need SOPA/PIPA again?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701, 14 Jan 2012 @ 1:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    > If he was using U.S. copyright material's the case is heard
    > on U.S. soil. It doesn't matter where he lives, it's the country
    > where the material's were copyright protected.
    
    As a general statement of law, that's utter nonsense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 7:58am
  
  Re:
  The United States cannot prosecute you for something you did in the United Kingdom.
  
  Clearly you're mistaken, as that's exactly what they're doing here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:30am
  
  Re:
  So when someone in the UK publically displays some media that is out of copyright in the UK but not the US, they can now be extradited for 'criminal' copyright 'infringement'?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:42am

What if these were links to sites hosting your personal bank account information? What if these were links to sites hosting illegal p0rn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- NetworkAdmin, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  I wouldn't like it, but it doesn't matter. If the US can be allowed to prosecute anyone in the world for violating a US law, even when they're not in the US, then that sets the precedent for China, Iran, Japan, UK, etc to prosecute you for doing something IN the US (or any other country) that is illegal in China/Iran/Japan/UK/etc - even if you never left the comfort of your own home. That's the point of this article.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  Ah, the old IP maximalist tactic of conflating copyright infringement with child porn...
  
  Identity theft and child porn are illegal in the UK and perpetrators of such crimes are able to be convicted by their local jurisdictions.
  
  The biggest absurdity in this case is that his website is not illegal in his own country.
  
  This is the equivalent of the US extraditing an American citizen to hold trial in Iran because they posted an image depicting Muhammad, which isn't illegal in the US.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:51am
  
  Re:
  I think I speak for a lot of people when I say. What the heck are you going on about?
  
  I think I understand the point you are trying to make but it is not at all the same as what this guy was doing. First you talk of linking to personal bank info. Well banking info is a lot different than a tv show in a lot of ways and if you are too thick to understand that then there is little helping you.
  
  As for illegal porn, well that depends on where you live on what that means. Some places any porn is illegal and so I doubt anyone really cares. If you are implying child porn as I assume you are then you really must be a moron. Hurting children for enjoyment is NOTHING AT ALL like watching a tv show online.
  
  So your argument in the end is totally unrelatable to current topic and over the top stupid at best.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:56am
    
    Re: Re: The old trolls say:
    The old trolls say:
    Anything + web = worse!
    
    If I recall, many years ago it was anything + electricity = worse...
    or was that anything + car = worse? Oh well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  Way to speculate.
  
  *Ahem* Citation needed
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:59am
  
  Re:
  I've seen someone comment this at some other site and I think it is true:
  
  There appears to be a disturbing new trend in trolling, one in which the trolls no longer try to make other people look stupid, but try real hard to make themselves look stupid.
  
  It's just...weird...but, uh, keep up the good work?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 5:42am
  
  Re:
  I'd expect the sites hosting that information to be prosecuted, not the site linking to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duke (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:03am

Slightly Misleading headline
The main part of the case turned on whether or not the site was legal in the UK, and here the judge found that, unlike TV-Links, it wasn't. The key issue is whether or not the 'mere conduit' principle applies, and it was argued (and apparently accepted by the judge) that O'Dwyr wasn't protected by that defence for two reasons:

"Firstly both TVShack websites were entirely in the hands of Richard O�Dwyer and his co conspirators requiring third parties to sign up to TVShack and be vetted before going further. Secondly he argues, unlike [TV-Links], there was no attempt to protect copyright, he, Richard O�Dwyer, knew materials were subject to copyright and actively taunted already cited efforts in June 2010 to seize TVShack.net."

Personally, I'm not sure the second part of that is relevant to the issue, and the first seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the law and, for example, could see ISPs lose their immunity under this law as they also "vet" their customers to a degree.

Hopefully, though, we'll now get a nice High Court or even Court of Appeal ruling on this issue, showing whether or not linking is illegal, and ruling how broad the 'mere conduit' defence is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Juan, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:21am

wow...
so the US is fighting to extradite a kid from the UK back to the US so we can throw him in jail...

...but deporting illegal immigrants with felony records is off the table?!

Wow. Our laws and priorities in the US are completely out of whack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re: wow...
  Amen that it is
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
res2 (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:58am

Roll Reversal
Let's face it, the UK is now an American colony...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re: Roll Reversal
  Ha HA! The tables have turned!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:04pm

Welcome to the New World Tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:07pm

Did I miss a court ruling in the US that declared that linking to copyrighted material was a criminal offense? The feds are so wrapped up in extraditing him for criminal copyright infringement, but yet as far as I can see, linking to copyrighted material isn't even a real crime under current US laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  Did I miss a court ruling in the US that declared that linking to copyrighted material was a criminal offense?
  
  No.
  
  Not that I'm aware of. See United States v Rojadirecta
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:07pm

Let's try to remember that his ruling came from a magistrate's court which is about as far down on the bottom on the judicial system in England as you can get. This isn't to say the barristers or the judge were or are incompetent only that either way this turned out there would likely be an appeal.

It's at the coming stages of the appeal that the rulings will be important.for reasons like setting precedent and defining what and how broadly the "mere conduit" can be interpreted.

I suspect it will be a while yet before Richard O'Dwyer sees the inside of an American court much less spends time in a jail.

By the way. Just to complicate things for Americans who don't know these things. Scotland has a separate and different criminal code from England and there are differences in Scots civil law too. Innocent before being proven guilty is carried on in both but there are important differences. So this ruling may not and probably does not apply UK wide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acslawarecrooks, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:08pm

Google is a rougue site dedicated to infringement - it has links to infringing material http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tower+heist+torrent&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&clie nt=safari
/s

Arrest the CEO of google and extradite him to the United States of Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re:
  Google doesn't purposely aggregate them. Duh.
  
  Keep playing stupid tho.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Acslawarecrooks, 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Doesn't matter, by the letter of the law, they are doing the same, providing links to copyrighted material. Whether or not they aggregate them they still display them.
    I do not think Google is breaking any British law, so by the same argument I also do not think TVSHACK was committing any British law. If they were then he would have been charged and punished in GREAT BRITAIN.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ProudAmerican, 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You are playing stupid. The law doesn't specify. So all search engines are guilty.
    
    Keep playing facist though...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 13 Jan 2012 @ 4:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      All ISP's pass infringing material along to dirty criminal pirates, so by the Entertainment Industry's logic, ISP's are just as criminal. And since customers of ISP's are giving money to keep the ISP's in business, all internet users are guilty of aiding and abetting criminal enterprises.
      
      Comcast should have its employees arrested for infringing its own NBC material!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greevar (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:15pm

Unbelievable.
How does US law apply to UK citizens for things they do on their native soil? Tell me. How? So now we don't just have to watch out for breaking our own laws, but we can expect to be punished for breaking laws in other countries despite them being legal where such actions occur?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: Unbelievable.
  So now we don't just have to watch out for breaking our own laws, but we can expect to be punished for breaking laws in other countries despite them being legal where such actions occur?
  
  Only the laws written by trade groups representing powerful rich corporations. The US govt won't bother extraditing for most of the other laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re: Unbelievable.
    I was implying that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 15 Jan 2012 @ 6:05pm
  
  Re: Unbelievable.
  How does US law apply to UK citizens for things they do on their native soil? Tell me. How?
  
  Because the US is in charge of the world. Didn't you know that?
  
  So now we don't just have to watch out for breaking our own laws, but we can expect to be punished for breaking laws in other countries despite them being legal where such actions occur?
  
  No, you just have to worry about breaking US laws, other countries don't matter. You know, because they're not the US...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
vilain (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:20pm

what about the reverse
If the UK will extradite one of their citizens to the US for doing something that's legal in the UK but illegal in the US, then I see the reverse happening. Meeting the grounds for libel and defamation in the UK is a lot easier, so suing a US citizen in a UK court for such might be interesting. Same for other crimes.

A disaster that caused a gas pipeline to explode killing 8 people in SF has been found to be caused by various illegal and the company diverted funds collected from rate payers to pay themselves. Suppose some QC in the UK decides to prosecute the CEO and Board of the gas company various criminal charges because a UK citizen died in the explosion. Doubt the US courts would extradite these 1%-ers to the UK for trial. So Interpol sends some people to 'extradite them' with extreme prejudice. I can see this as a LAW & ORDER-UK episode in the near future.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:36am
  
  Re: what about the reverse
  Except that your dual-standarded government would just find an excuse to refuse extradition in this case.
  
  Still, I'd love to see someone justifying all the extra costs for extraditing, prosecuting and jailing foreign nationals, effectively turning them into non-productive immigrants, and massively over-reaching/growing the Federal Government. You'd have thought a few of the libertarians might have an issue with that, if your liberals are too spineless to take up the human rights aspect.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:31pm

United (Horror) Kingdom
I think if the Home Secretary extradites him this should be classed as an act of Treason.

Well based on this Court ruling today now every British citizen must obey United States Federal law no matter if they have been to the United States or not.

Then in the case of conflict of law systems then should a British citizen obey the law of the United Kingdom or that of the United States?

Is the law of the United States superior, equal to or lesser than the law of the United Kingdom?

Does this mean that UK citizen must also obey the laws of other extradition countries like Canada and Australia? If so then place these few dozen countries in order of the importance of their law systems and clarify how the vast degree of law system conflicts should be resolved.

The World has just become a strange and scary place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Idobek (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:37am
  
  Re: United (Horror) Kingdom
  It gets worse: technically, under the European Arrest Warrant rules, any EU country can have you arrested and sent to them for acts illegal in that country (e.g. Hungary) but "committed" in another (e.g. Britain).
  
  Not exactly what most people think the a European Arrest Warrant is for, is it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AzureSky (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:41pm

" Do we really want the US government going around the world, dragging kids from their homes and taking them back to the US to throw them in jail... because they set up a webpage with some links on it?"

Oh HELL YES, we do, because our private prison industry is still growing and they need to fill those beds!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meph, 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:45pm

meh
Fuck the USA, fuck the UK fucking al of the leaders are fascist war warmongering bastards responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in the middle east, go piss on a corpse, cunts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re: meh
  Gorehound? Is that you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:31pm
    
    Re: Re: meh
    TAM? Is that you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phalamir (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:06pm

Special Relationship
I guess the chorus of Rule Britannia is no longer in effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Petra Arkanian (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:08pm

co-author of PIPA- interesting story link
These guys are absolute dictators. My friends, take a look at the man who co- authored the original COICA (Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act), and has co- authored PIPA, Senator Orrin Hatch.
http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/
This attempt by the Gov. to further control our lives will fail- it's a futile attempt against technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:19pm

RE
the Conflict here is a digital world with Analog laws.

most of the governments (as an Idea) are Analog, we need to digitize them.

The internet is the most world changing event, since huge meteors hit the Planet.

think about this folks, the Analog world cannot handle the digital one, it's not fast enough to keep up, Ever.

Communication used to take years and months, then weeks and days, then hours and minutes, now it's in seconds and nano seconds.

the Analog world is going to be surpassed and it can feel it

The US Government is the big Analog on the block and soon will feel pressure from all sides, this is one of the Many death spasms it is going through.

The whole analog world is soon to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LeadPoop, 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:21pm

Vacation
Let them extradite him! I bet he will get a nice vacation out of the deal. Worst case he gets a year or so in prison, free medical, dental, and a education if he so chooses. This go to prove that our government needs to be taken down a notch or two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 7:33pm
  
  Re: Vacation
  He lives in the UK, he already gets FREE health care including dental and a much better and a whole lot cheaper college/university education whilst not being locked up.
  
  Only the USA has people wanting to go to gaol so that they can get the medical, dental, and educational benefits that are denied to 'free' citizens
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 5:48am
  
  Re: Vacation
  "free medical, dental, and a education"
  
  Those are already free in the UK...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2012 @ 2:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Vacation
    You say free, but we pay boatloads of tax to actually pay for them!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 15 Jan 2012 @ 12:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Vacation
      Don't be obtuse, of course we do but they're (mostly) free at the point of requiring them unlike American healthcare, etc. In other words, they're as free as the "freebies" he'd receive by being in prison as per LeadPoop's comment...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - M Hamilton, 17 Jul 2012 @ 3:20am
    
    Re: Re: Vacation
    "free medical, dental, and a education Those are already free in the UK..."
    
    Not exactly, along with our taxes we have to pay something called National Insurance Contributions which are deducted directly from our wages. This goes to fund The National Health Service, so, in effect we do pay for our medical care in the same way you pay medical insurance. The only differences are we call it something else and healthcare is operated by the govenment rather than the private sector.
    Also, Basic education in the UK is free in the same way as your elementry and high schools are paid for by the tax payer. A university education however, is paid for by the idividual, runs into many thousands of pounds and in many cases leaves that indivdual in significant debt for years afterwards. We don't necessarily get the free ride many US citizens would like to assume.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:22pm

Oh, come on, Mike. This kid just single-handedly destroyed the US economy*. He deserves anything he gets!

*According to big media calculations which, as we all know, are completely trustworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:29pm

Daily Mail
Even the Daily Mail has come out against this with a big banner headline on the front page!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ProudAmerican, 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:31pm

Double Standard
The problem is it is a double standard. It is impossible for a foreign country to extradite an American. I could in any country in the world, hack off babies's heads, set children on fire. But if I make back to the USA, the requesting government could have a video of me doing those things and a signed confession, but I would never be extradited.

Most of my fellow Americans don't get it, or, they are jingoistic haters, they think it is perfectly fine do anything to other countries, indeed the haters think its funny to hurt foreign human beings. They love to boast about all our bombs and nukes and how we can destroy any country that does not slave to us. It is this type of double standard that many countries resent America, not because of jealousy, like the jingoistic haters like to delude themselves in thinking. In fact, for the longest time America was admired for the ideals it stood for, but those days are long gone, and its sad to say my country lost any moral standing years ago.

Richard O'Dwyer will be extradited. He will be locked up after his trial finds him guilty - make no mistake, he will be tried in the US and he will be convicted. He will be put in a US prison with murderers, and he will be beaten to death and die in a US prison. The British people no longer have the balls to even defend their own country. This is only a beginning, other countries will have to surrender their own citizens or face full US military retaliation. It will happen. It has happened.

No doubt many American readers are going to think I'm flaming or a troll, and that's fine. Most of my Americans worship and cherish an image of America that is the perfect country, and resent anyone, especially a foreigner, even remotely suggesting that America has even the smallest problem or is not absolutely a perfect country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2012 @ 3:42am
  
  Re: Double Standard
  You're off your meds, again, aren't you? Other countries can and do extradite US citizens for offenses. They only need an extradition treaty. Of course you could just do a Google search if you weren't lazy.
  
  Just a couple of examples.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim McGinn, 13 Jan 2012 @ 3:41pm

The British people no longer have the balls to even defend their own country. And the US has become a joke that will do the same.

I'm sorry for where I was born, I'm sorry for the country that I lived in and loved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 5:18pm

What the Fuck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silvermitt, 13 Jan 2012 @ 6:27pm

US Extradition of UK student
OK, I'm a US citizen and I STRONGLY feel this is a serious matter. Think about this: A US law is being pushed onto other countries because the US thinks they've got the legal right to do so?! If the student was a US citizen in the UK studying, I might find some legal basis for this. However, this isn't even a US CITIZEN! He's UK. Where does the US lawyers find the legal right for this?! You can't take a citizen of a foreign country doing something so pitifully slight as this (and legal I might add in the UK) and condemn them for high crimes or treason. Where is the common sense?? Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson MUST be rolling in their graves. I fear for the sanity and freedom of my countrymen in the US under our current politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew A. Sawtell, 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:38pm

The real precedence from this case?
Of all the comments that I have seen so far around the world about this situation was pretty much summed up in the comment section of the London Daily Mail, "What next, extradite women to Saudi Arabia for wearing a bikini?"

As much as some folks like to keep wishing to themselves, and to others, that this is only about copyright - others are understanding the underlying issue: Anyone, anywhere in the world can be subject to somebody else's laws, and punishments - and may not know it until it is too late. Hate to pitch up the canard of 'NWO', but... sometime the 'crackpots' are not too far off the entended target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 14 Jan 2012 @ 1:51am

Blame treaty beetween uk and us
As for the kid, the article is way too biased on his favor. While I understand his "crime" is victimless, he was very irresponsible in staying under radar.

He was not just publishing website with links! He made money from it by posting ads with those links!! That's why the entertainment industry and courts took him little seriously. He made about $230,000!!!

And after ice seized his first domain, he set up a replacement with words "f*ck police". That's why they were able to charge him with "WILLFULLY Copyright Infrigment "that carries up to 5 years in federal prison for first offense.

If he did it all just only once, I think they would have left him alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 5:54am
  
  Re: Blame treaty beetween uk and us
  So, this is OK because when first attacked for something that wasn't technically illegal in his own country, where he stayed for the duration of the incident, his response was not to bow down to the self-appointed overlords in the US? It's OK because he made money out of something legal in his own nation? Because he told a foreign nation with no jurisdiction in the place where the "crime" was committed to go fuck themselves?
  
  Somehow, I think that if the above article was rewritten with "US" instead of "UK" and "North Korea" replacing "US", you'd probably sing a different tune, which makes you a hypocrite and a liar.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tom, 14 Jan 2012 @ 4:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Blame treaty beetween uk and us
    Facilitating copyright infrigment is against laws. Thats what the kid did. He provided links to pirated US TV shows where they take place in US jurisdiction.
    
    Technically he did something illegal, otherwise UK police would have never arrested him. They do not issue arrests without reasonable suspicion based on sufficient evidence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2012 @ 6:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Blame treaty beetween uk and us
      Of course if the police arrest someone they have to have been doing something illegal and suspicion is proof of guilt.
      
      Haha, very funny
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Collins, 14 Jan 2012 @ 6:23am

Different law for Duchesses
Funny how the same day this happens, the UK government refuses to extradite the Duchess of York (Prince Andrew's ex-wife) to Turkey because her alleged offence (committed on Turkish soil) is "not an offence in the UK".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16531752

This is the kind of thing that the term "double standard" is coined for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 14 Jan 2012 @ 10:36am

International TV
The reason for such legal fervor is that Internet distribution will replace the current system of networks and brick-and-mortar stations with Studio-based networks that broadcast world-wide, and gain advertising revenue for doing so. This case is like the Disney suit against the home videotaper who made a copy of Cinderella for himself. It's a pre-emptive strike for control of the portals, and it will affect U.S. linkers as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnson, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:54am

Certainly wrong
It is certainly wrong to bring this guy to trial in another country, and this fact alone ist as alarming as it is stupid. However, this article is a bit too biased. This "poor kid" is in fact enabling others to download illegal content. He does not pirate himself, well then. Drug dealers do not produce the product, too. And yes, if one of them is stopped, someone will fill the gap, because there is such a high demand. As someone who enables to millions to watch illegal content (and earning money through ads probably) he probably had it coming, just not that much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:44am
  
  Re: Certainly wrong
  Are you seriously comparing drug dealers to people who run linkfarms or even provide infringing content? Are you seriously comparing the dangers of drug abuse to watching an 'illicit' copy of The Wire?
  
  Are you seriously dumb?
  
  Oh, and how's that War on Drugs coming on? ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Johnson, 16 Jan 2012 @ 9:01am
    
    Re: Re: Certainly wrong
    Yes, I am seriously dumb. The war on drugs is coming on nicely, at least at home where I take them all myself. When I am all fired up, I get all sorts of crazy ideas, like drugs and copyright infringement being both illegal and thus comparable. Also, I don't know which is worse: Somebody selling me a joint, or guys working hard on their album not getting paid. There are always at least two sides, get over it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Narcissus (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:03am
  
  Re: Certainly wrong
  Drugs and Child porn: The Godwin of IP maximalists!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dmytry, 24 Jan 2012 @ 5:37am

"Just think what happens under SOPA/PIPA" - OK lets think.
Seeing it as SOPA does not redefine copyright infringement (does not make any currently non infringing activities infringing), has no relation what so ever on the extradition procedures, and instead defines the procedure for getting sites such as the one in question delisted from US-based search engines, possibly DNS-blocked, and prevents US advertising companies from displaying ads on such sites...

The absolute utter horror that the SOPA is going to unleash, is forcing Google and the like to delist that poor student's link collection. So frigging terrible.

Get real guys. You can be criminally charged and extradited to US! Why do you frigging care that Google doesn't have to spend some pennies on a dollar blocking sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ihsaan, 6 Apr 2012 @ 7:32am

I offer another site for students who have high background records
they are amazing and their professionals seems much selective in each topic
I prefer https://www.qualityassignmenthelp.com
They deserve it since they do much hardwork and honest guys with high quality work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]