Richard O'Dwyer Has To Pay £20,000 To Close Out Lawsuit Against Him
from the and-that's-that dept
Last week, we wrote about how student Richard O'Dwyer cut a deal with the feds to end the extradition attempt and criminal charges against him for running TVShack.net, a links site similar to other UK sites that had already been deemed legal. We noted that as a part of this "deferred prosecution," O'Dwyer would need to come to the US and pay a "small sum." He's now done so, and the court has ordered that he pay £20,000. That's still a decent chunk of change, but not a crippling amount like what we've seen in cases like the Jammie Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum cases (which were very different types of cases, but arguably over much lesser charges -- civil vs. criminal for one thing...). It still seems ridiculous that he needed to pay anything at all, but getting the case over, for an amount that he can "afford," while avoiding jail seems like a pretty big victory for him -- especially given the language that the feds (and Hollywood) have used to describe O'Dwyer. In the meantime, guess how much of the £20,000 will be going to the artists O'Dwyer supposedly was harming?
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, lawsuit, richard o'dwyer
Companies: tvshack
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Only 20 K?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only 20 K?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have a winner
Gods spare me from any such 'victories.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We have a winner
Simple stuff. Unless of course you're a complete fucking moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We have a winner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni7Ybe3SXZM
I'm posting a link to copyrighted content! I must be doing something illegal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We have a winner
You apparently have reading comprehension issues.
Is that why you've been stuck in a job for 10 years that requires a nametag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We have a winner
oh, and I don't have to wear name tags either.
Try again, buskahosa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We have a winner
What does that even mean.
Yes his site aggregated links, so of course purposely. Are you trying to indicate there is something wrong with linking?
If so you should be going after the googles, bings, and yahoos of this world instead of the small fry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We have a winner
A 'simple' law doesn't make it a good law. and IP laws are by no means 'simple' but either way, they are all bad laws.
All IP laws should be abolished and I should not have to be forced to follow bad laws passed by self interested politicians and corporate interests against my interest just because our politicians have been bought through campaign contributions and revolving door favors. IP laws should be abolished. Simple. Even a moron can get it.
Abolish IP!!!! Get rid of it, I hate these laws, they work against my interests as a member of the public and against the public interest and no one is entitled to a govt. established monopoly privilege.
IP laws should not be about the benefit and will of IP holders, they should only be about the sole benefit and will of the public and as a member of the public my will is that these laws get abolished. I don't care that you're a dumb meritless lawyer whose job depends on being a parasite off of these laws and that the abolition of these laws cause you to lose your job and force you to either be jobless or find a real job where you must actually work and contribute. You are a deadweight loss to society, what you do is no better than someone who breaks windows to keep his job and you should be forced to get a real job and you should be jailed for all the time you stole from the system to maintain your income. Get lost you stupid thug lawyer and get a real job and stop stealing from the public. No one needs you and you don't care about the artists or the public, you only care about yourself and to come here and lie about it and claim that you want laws that benefit you passed because they benefit artists is an insult to the artists that you are hindering through the removal of all the alternative content distribution services that they could otherwise benefit from if it weren't for all the IP and other anti-competitive laws getting in the way. You don't care about the artists, only yourself, and your own self interests are the only reason you want these bad laws.
Bad IP laws are the reason many restaurants and other venues refuse to host independent performers because they are afraid of getting sued by the IP collection cartels if they don't pay steep royalties under the pretext that someone might infringe. Even mom and pop bakeries are afraid of allowing children to draw custom pictures on their birthday cakes because they have received infringement lawsuit threats from the big giant IP cartels. GET RID OF THESE STUPID LAWS!!!! You dumb lawyer shill, get a real job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But for now ill take this as a win, with reservation........happy for richard, apart for the settlement, at least they have no basis to interfere with his life, the great deceptors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
POINT
Why cant they enforce the law of the land he is in??
I didnt think that LAW in 1 country was enforceable in other countries that didnt have the SAME, laws.. Other wise we could run rampant thru the middle east for Women's rights..
WHY is this a government concern?? this is a business vs Person concern..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POINT
USA is the only place in the world with as high damages. Most other places the fines dwarf the damages, which makes for a strong incentive for content industries and copyright trolls to incorporate in USA and "cooperate" on getting people extradited so you can sue them there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: POINT
The rest of the world has high fines and is therefore punishing the looser of the case just as hard (in case of prosecution loosing it is far worse for them), but removes a lot of the incentive from sueing aggressively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: POINT
Sooo, what would your reaction be if Iran or Libya or basically any Muslim country sought extradition of americans for offences such as playing rock music or beeing nude in public ? (the internets is pretty damn public).
You'd be outraged right ? because it's legal in the US (well, not in public, but on the internets after you click an affirmation/consent popup).
So. that's basically this case. a similar site to TvShack was deemed legal according to UK law, but America wanted him extradited for breaking THEIR law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: POINT
And the fact that you had to use zealot countries in your pathetic attempt at making some kind of point, instead of, say, one in the EU, says everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POINT
Linking to things can't be seen as illegal as it would destroy the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POINT
(and i got the desired reaction from you)
When it comes to copyright, can you guess wich country in the world is the 'zealot' country as you put it?
A country that by the rest of the worlds standards on the subject is batshit crazy in all things copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POINT
I wrote the RE and RE RE, while someone else wrote the RE RE RE RE.
If you read the RE and RE RE together I think you will see that the RE RE is more of a back hand compliment than anything else.
As for RE RE RE RE, he uses ad hom to start his post. That is a classic sign of empty drums: Your argument was specious and he knows it. However, he also knows that the arguments against what you meant was extremely thin. To start with an ad hom, he is trying to keep the discussion from moving to the point you were making.
If you make those kinds of analysis on every comment, you will end up never using ad hom since it is always a fallacy and often a sign of a lack of arguments or lack of depth in arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POINT
Like America you mean? Fanatical, Partisan, and highly religious perhaps?
or were you talking about the Judean sect in 100BCE that opposed Roman rule?
I think you really need to research the meaning of zealot. Then look up equity, ethics, and parochialism, with maybe a dash of Reciprocity thrown in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POINT
What a carefully worded statement.
First, the courts in the UK have ruled in multiple instances other sites doing the exact same thing were legal.
Second, in a free country, laws usually indicate things that are illegal, and if there is no law against doing something, it is considered legal. If you can point to the specific UK law that states that posting links on the internet is illegal, I'll concede the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
And you pirates think he's terribly harmed, when actually he got enough money from the infringing to set him up for life!
You are some disgusting grifters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
That would have been enough, but you just had to include those last two sentences with the lame attempt to insult. It's really shameful. I was actually shocked to find myself in agreement with you for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
After a quick read, I only saw accusation of monies earned by the US.
Of course, US prosecutors NEVER make mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
So why the freakin hell are you still here then? or are you trying to 'convert' us or something?
Here's a clue.. to convert someone to your way of thinking you need to actually INTERACT with them. this means replying to comments and actually debating, discussing, and all the other human ways of conversing.
Oh I forgot.. your not Human just an ignoranus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
Then I saw who the comment was directed at.
Then I decided all was fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
For your future reference it comes directly "> from this comment I did to the weird one just over a week ago
[ IGNORANUS - adj: A person who is not only ignorant, but is also an asshole (ie: out_of_the_blue) ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 6th, 2012 @ 5:00pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fixed for the reality you seem to have trouble addressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who decided that £20,000 is a 'small sum'?
as the 'harm' he was supposedly doing was to the earnings of artists, why is all of that 'small sum' going to wherever instead of the artists?
when are the US courts going to wake up and smell the coffee and do something positive to stop all these bogus 'irreparable harm done through file sharing' cases, particularly when courts in other countries are forced to comply with laws that are not broken in these other countries and that any monies recouped go into industry coffers, not to those the suit is over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.gofundme.com/1bo8vo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll donate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll donate!
http://www.gofundme.com/1bo8vo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another sell-out
Seen elsewhere: "He agreed to stay in touch with a correctional officer over a six-month period as part of the contract."
Oh my - what a naughty boy he's been. The Yanks should have been told to push off in no uncertain manner when they wanted extradition. Nowt to do with them in any way, shape or form, as he hasn't committed any crime on their soil and USA laws don't (or shouldn't) apply to UK citizens. Does this now mean that USA jurisdiction (or any other country's) now extends to every UK internet user? Am I likely to be carted off to foreign parts to have my hands chopped off for criticising some far eastern royal family, even though I am not a citizen of their country. have never been there and never had the slightest connection with anybody in that country? The mind boggles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's 20,000 lawyers rotting in a swamp? A GOOD START!
20,000 £ = $32,060.00 USD.
Just for perspective.
Its still robbery if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
donate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]