News - UK Student faces 10 years in US jail for copyright infringement

[Smudger]

So, because topless bathing is illegal in parts of the US, can they extradite British wimmin who bathe topless on holiday in France, or Greece?*


*The first thing that's illegal in the US that came to my mind...

[Biscuit]

Probably true. Thinking of the US specifically, have you not read over the "PATRIOT" Act?

i have done before, but there seems to be a lot of FUD mixed in with the actual facts so its hard to really know what it will actually be used for, what they can use it for and what they have used it for.

My tinfoil hat does stay nearby nowerdays with all this 'terrorism risk' business. Just seems like an easy go to excuse to do whatever the hell they like regardless of your human rights and all the other laws which have worked perfectly fine for x amount of years.

[streetster]

So does this open the door for the extradition of any UK citizen doing something that is a crime in the US but not in the UK?

If it's legal to host links to copyrighted material in the UK then as a UK citizen on UK soil I don't feel he's broken the law (certainly a grey area morally, he wasn't doing anything 'good' by providing the links).

Ignoring the US->UK only trend of extraditions... could the UK try and charge someone in the US with something that is legal there but not legal here, ie owning a handgun? I don't understand how one countries laws can be used outside of it's borders...

Could Pakistan (unlikely as we probably dont have a treaty with them) request a British married gay couple to be extradited? No... it's legal here... slightly extreme example I know.

"Team America: World Police" seems fitting here...

[Brewster0101]

He still did not host any illegal content.....merely links to them.

A person who points you in the direction of a drug dealer is an accessory to crime.

A person who points you in the direction of a prostitute (aka pimp) is an accessory to crime.

A person who points you in the direction of illegal copyright protected material is an accessory to crime.

Plus he made money from his website and actions - seems clear he is guilty, but I think the American courts will try to make an example of him.

[shaithis]

A person who points you in the direction of a drug dealer is an accessory to crime.

A person who points you in the direction of a prostitute (aka pimp) is an accessory to crime.

A person who points you in the direction of illegal copyright protected material is an accessory to crime.

Plus he made money from his website and actions - seems clear he is guilty, but I think the American courts will try to make an example of him.

See my first post then.........

Better jail goggle, yahoo, etc

And 99% of the time the police do nothing to such people other then use them to apprehend the real perpetrators of crime.

But in this case, they want to throw the book at the messenger. Bravo. That'll really help.

[streetster]

In February last year charges involving fraud and copyright against a similar site, TV-Links, were dismissed after a judge ruled that linking alone was not illegal.

(source is only The Guardian) but what he did, based on previous cases, is not illegal in the UK.

[Platinum]

I see no reason the US should have him, isn't the only link to the US verisign?, If he has broken the law then he should be tried and jailed if necessary in the UK, other than that the US should keep its nose out.

[Tpyo]

I think they are right to prosecute him for what he did, but its so very wrong to extradite him to the US.
The extradition law was set up for terrorism but its now being used for copy-write issues? Have Hexus got the wrong end of the stick here or is this true?
Personally i think its a terrifying prospect if such a thing is true.

Probably true. Thinking of the US specifically, have you not read over the "PATRIOT" Act?

Is this related to the 'bilateral' extradition treaties the US signed with everyone that magically became unilateral (i.e. the US will not send its citizens to you but you are bound to send tyours to them) when congress refused to subsequently ratify it? Whichever numpty agreed to this on our (and other nations behalf) should be shot for not putting in a clause that it would only apply if it worked both ways.

Meanwhile, would the US even consider extraditing a US citizen to another country for a crime that was not a criminal offence in the US, even if it had physically been committed on foreign soil? (Genuine question here - can anyone think of any examples?)

[Animus404]

The article says "Under British Law, O’Dwyer’s actions are not illegal as his websites did not host copyrighted material." and the article also states that the extradition act was setup specifically to deal with Terrorism. Surely this is abusing the act and ignoring British Law. If he was in the United States when he set the website up then there might be grounds for extradition.

Whatever next? Are we going to start sending people to Saudi Arabia to face a trial for Witchcraft just because they setup a website about it?

[Terbinator]

Meanwhile, would the US even consider extraditing a US citizen to another country for a crime that was not a criminal offence in the US, even if it had physically been committed on foreign soil? (Genuine question here - can anyone think of any examples?)

That's the best part of it for me, and perhaps touching on SOPA, but couldn't he argue freedom of speech/expression and so on.

[shaithis]

Is this related to the 'bilateral' extradition treaties the US signed with everyone that magically became unilateral (i.e. the US will not send its citizens to you but you are bound to send tyours to them) when congress refused to subsequently ratify it? Whichever numpty agreed to this on our (and other nations behalf) should be shot for not putting in a clause that it would only apply if it worked both ways

It was Tony Blair....

Supposedly, Nick Clegg has said he will look into the law - so, don't expect anything to change.

[Saracen]

He still did not host any illegal content.....merely links to them.

Seems they want to constantly move "the line"......wonder how long before it's illegal to report news like this? After all, your potentially profiting from someone who is "breaking the law"...

It raises a couple of issues.

First, the nature of offences when the internet is involved, precisely because you can do things from anywhere, host things in one country and provide access to another, while living in a third. In many places, and many ways, the law has yet to catch up with that.

As for "merely" hosting links, well, if I "merely" describe how to build a bomb, how to make the chemicals, and to brew explosive, how to construct a timer, and how to get it past airport security, can I expect a "visit" from well-armed police? Probably, and I'd deserve it. But all I've down is write words, I haven't told anyone to build a bomb, much less encouraged them to use it.

Okay, the analogy only goers so far, but if this site was, as appears to be the case, largely aimed at facilitating copyright infringement, then he was telling people where to get the components to build a copyright bomb. And, according to reports, when the site was taken down he immediately put another one back up, with a pointed hint at contempt for authority.

He was, as far as I can make out, running a site which relied on being a parasite, feeding off of the work of others, and according to reports, making quite a lot of money out of it. There is, in my view, little qualitative difference between hosting copyright infringing materials, and hosting links telling people where to find the actual files. Either way, the object of the exercise is to infringe copyright, and to make money doing it.

If he's convicted, then I can only say he deserves it, and being young, or a student, or "naive" as his mother apparently said, is no excuse, any more than it is for any other criminal action. He's made his bed, and now it's time to lie in it, even if it looks like it might be a bunk in a prison cell.

And this wasn't, from what I can gather, a tiny little hobby site, either. This is not an individual copying a few films or CDs for his mates. It's the provision of assistance for copyright infringement on a large scale.

[Saracen]

(source is only The Guardian) but what he did, based on previous cases, is not illegal in the UK.

Not according to the judge. He exercised too much control overt the links to be classed as a "mere conduit", as was the case with TV-Links. That's why the extradition was granted.

[Saracen]

It was Tony Blair....

Supposedly, Nick Clegg has said he will look into the law - so, don't expect anything to change.

But Mr Clegg promised ..... oh wait ....

It was a promise, not a pledge, wasn't it. And we all know what political promises are worth. Now, had it been a pledge, in writing .....

[shaithis]

He was, as far as I can make out, running a site which relied on being a parasite, feeding off of the work of others, and according to reports, making quite a lot of money out of it. There is, in my view, little qualitative difference between hosting copyright infringing materials, and hosting links telling people where to find the actual files. Either way, the object of the exercise is to infringe copyright, and to make money doing it.

So, you agree that all search engines should also be accountable and stood beside him in court?

You cannot have a law for one and not the other.

Plus, before you mention that he exerted control over the links, so do search engines.

[aidanjt]

That's a matter of opinion, and ultimately, for a court to decide. But based on reports I've read, I disagree. It looks to me like he knew exactly what he was doing, and thought that either no action would be taken, or that if it was, he was immune from action by the US courts. It looks like he was wrong on both points.

Of course, it remains to be seen if the extradition actually takes place, and if it does, whether he's convicted in a US court.

Again, based on the reports I've read, yes to both.

Under British Law, O’Dwyer’s actions are not illegal as his websites did not host copyrighted material.

Hmm?

You're not seriously suggesting that British citizens should be subject to US law, are you?