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

[aidanjt]

It will not happen to me.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Never think they'll never come for you.

[Saracen]

Except he neither went, nor phoned, the United States. His very British website *received* traffic from US citizens. It was the US citizens who initiated the connection, and retrieved the so-called illegal listing.


....

And if it went no further than that, we wouldn't be talking about it. But when the user clicks on a link, the site initiates the process of downloading infringing material. The site actively facilitates the process of disseminating the infringing files, and is not a passive recipient of a connection from the US. The US citizen went searching, and the site provided the link to the infringing material. It's not just an innocent by-stander. It did exactly what it was created to do.

[TheAnimus]

Except he neither went, nor phoned, the United States. His very British website *received* traffic from US citizens. It was the US citizens who initiated the connection, and retrieved the so-called illegal listing.

My understanding was that it was the rights holders who were US? And we have agreements in place to protect them (which are ment to be reciprical).

His very british website was also hosted in the netherlands.... None of this matters thou because he was a brit cit, earning a six figure sum, on the back of (amongst others) US copyright holders material. Surely you can't deny that? It was hand picked and dedicated to that.

And the idea that just because you're connected to the internet you're subject to US dominion is frankly terrifying.

Hate to break it to you but it's about the rights holders, not the US policing the ARPA net.

Are you complaing that he is been extrodited rather than UK courts? Or are you in the "he was only doing what google did" boat? I mean newzbin at least hid behind croud sourcing it, removing any serials/keygens etc.

[mikerr]

Except he neither went, nor phoned, the United States. His very British website received traffic from US citizens.

Very british? Both websites were US domains: .com and .cc (both verisign)
I wonder if the same would have happened on a .co.uk ?

[Saracen]

Never think they'll never come for you.

Drivel. I know they'll never come for me. I'm not hosting a link site to copyright infringing material. And it isn't what that poem is about, either. Pathetic argument.

I'll say it again, seeing as you seem to be ignoring it. What O'Dwyer did is illegal here. Or it is until a superior court says it isn't or Parliament changes the law. You could make that pathetic argument about any law currently in existence in the UK.

[Saracen]

My understanding was that it was the rights holders who were US? ....

And US citizens he was receiving some of his advertising revenue from, apparently.

That is was primarily US rights holders may well be why prosecuting isn't a high priority for the UK authorities, though. The judge sort-of hinted in that direction, but certainly without quite saying it.

[aidanjt]

And if it went no further than that, we wouldn't be talking about it. But when the user clicks on a link, the site initiates the process of downloading infringing material.

Wrong, the browser initiates the process of downloading infringing material. A hyperlink is a reference to a foreign document.

The site actively facilitates the process of disseminating the infringing files

Again, no it doesn't. The site provides a set of links, what the user does with those after the list page has been delivered is his own business.

and is not a passive recipient of a connection from the US. The US citizen went searching, and the site provided the link to the infringing material. It's not just an innocent by-stander. It did exactly what it was created to do.

Yes, the US citizen did the searching, list retrieval, and the downloading, and all the infringing, not the owner of the website. The British owner of the website living in Britain is not responsible for the personal behaviour of foreign citizens and their local laws.

[aidanjt]

My understanding was that it was the rights holders who were US? And we have agreements in place to protect them

Who are governed by (or it would be more accurate to just say, buy) US law.

(which are ment to be reciprical).

Don't hold your breath on that.

His very british website was also hosted in the netherlands....

Which doesn't have such an agreement with the US nor bans the dowloading of copyright content.

None of this matters thou because he was a brit cit, earning a six figure sum, on the back of (amongst others) US copyright holders material. Surely you can't deny that?

Surely I can. He earned ad revenue from his traffic. He didn't charge for links to the foreign content, or serve up the content himself without permission from the rights holders.

It was hand picked and dedicated to that.

There's no British law which says you can't point at foreign content, illegal or otherwise.

Hate to break it to you but it's about the rights holders, not the US policing the ARPA net.

US rights holders under US law. And it's not the first time the US has pressed for extradition of British nationals obeying British law. When was the last time the US granted extradition of a US citizen to Britain for breaking British law?

Are you complaing that he is been extrodited rather than UK courts? Or are you in the "he was only doing what google did" boat? I mean newzbin at least hid behind croud sourcing it, removing any serials/keygens etc.

Primarily, if he's broken British law, let him be tried in a British court, which takes presidence over extradition concerns. Secondly, is the notion that a British citizen living in Britain is subject to US law, is obscene.

[aidanjt]

Very british? Both websites were US domains: .com and .cc
I wonder if the same would have happened on a .co.uk ?

.com isn't a US domain, it's a generic domain generally used for commercial websites. .cc is Australian territory. Not that domains denote any general jurisdiction anyway. The owner of the website is of primary concern.

[Animus404]

I think the real worry in this case is that the extradition act which was set up with the idea of making it easier to extradite terrorists is being used for other less serious things.
Many governments have passed laws and what not since the World Trade Centre was destroyed, and they keep getting abused.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=abuse+of+anti+terrorism+laws&form=OPRTSD&pc=OPER
Here is a quick search on Bing which turns up lots of examples. Including "Anti-terrorism laws used to spy on noisy children"

[aidanjt]

Drivel. I know they'll never come for me. I'm not hosting a link site to copyright infringing material. And it isn't what that poem is about, either. Pathetic argument.

It's about greedy fascists coming after people going about their business, not doing anything unethical, one at a time, until there's no-one left to protect you from them when they come for you unexpected. It applies just fine.

I'll say it again, seeing as you seem to be ignoring it. What O'Dwyer did is illegal here. Or it is until a superior court says it isn't or Parliament changes the law. You could make that pathetic argument about any law currently in existence in the UK.

Again, if he has been accused of breaking British law, then why isn't he being tried in a British court of law? Given that it does take presidence over extradition concerns after all.

[shaithis]

Drivel. I know they'll never come for me. I'm not hosting a link site to copyright infringing material. And it isn't what that poem is about, either. Pathetic argument.

Oh, but you are talking about it!

lol. As I said earlier.......

It used to be hosting, now it's linking, when will it be "discussing"? We already have a situation where Hexus deletes posts because people are discussing (not linking or posting) things to circumvent security (in many cases it's even debatable that the person even realises what they are talking about does circumvent security) and your scared your going to get prosecuted for it! 10 years ago we would all have said rubbish to anyone proposing such a situation could exist.

Keep on letting Sony, Hollywood and the likes decide the law while being blinkered to it.....and one day you may only be able to post censored news on Hexus.........imagine it being illegal to post news about people who are being prosecuted for copyright infringement........Is that a world you want to live in?

Hell, we have super-injunctions now (legal censorship), only a small step now to expand the system to a wider use!

Funny how the source material he linked to is still there but they are pulling out all the stops to prosecute him. Funny how you haven't commented on how prosecuting/extraditing him hasn't stopped any online piracy. The guy has made money from low-lifes who are paying him to make their search for pirated material easier. He hasn't hurt anyone. It's even debatable that he hasn't deprived anyone of IP fees (as they were already looking for the material and would have found "the source" eventually).

Can you honestly tell me that this is the correct way to handle the situation?

Oh, please, you just won't admit you're wrong.

The only thing wrong here is your attitude.


Oh...and just to add a little perspective...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16590662

[BobF64]

Secondly, is the notion that a British citizen living in Britain is subject to US law, is obscene.

No, hes subject to English law, International law and various treaties between countries.

What crime, or how a crime, is committed is irrelevant because under one of the above 3 things, an English judge has ruled that the extradition request from the US is valid.

If it was, as people seem to believe, simply a case of "being subject to US law", then the US authorities would have turned up, gone in with the UK police, and dragged him away.

The law, as a whole rather than a specific legal instrument, is working as it is designed, albeit unpleasantly and "unjustly".

[aidanjt]

No, hes subject to English law, International law and various treaties between countries.

What crime, or how a crime, is committed is irrelevant because under one of the above 3 things, an English judge has ruled that the extradition request from the US is valid.

If it was, as people seem to believe, simply a case of "being subject to US law", then the US authorities would have turned up, gone in with the UK police, and dragged him away.

He's being extradited on the basis of breaking US law while being nowhere near the US, that's being subject to US law. It doesn't matter if it's British bobbies who hauled him away, it's that he's to be prosecuted under an Act voted for by the US Congress, and signed in by a US president.

[TheAnimus]

Who are governed by (or it would be more accurate to just say, buy) US law.

Yes, but as I said we have reciprical agreements, granted I think that we got a crap deal, I think Blair was a bit of a nancy when it came to negociation, nothing like *gushes* Thatcher.

Which doesn't have such an agreement with the US nor bans the dowloading of copyright content.

Exactly, my point is the site's location is irrelevant. See our problematic slander/liabel laws for the issues they create as they try to solve this problem, I can't help but think of the south park piss take of tom cruse "i'm going to sue you in England".

The nationality of the person running the site matters.

Surely I can. He earned ad revenue from his traffic. He didn't charge for links to the foreign content, or serve up the content himself without permission from the rights holders.

No but he selectively saught out illegal files. If a website had nothing but links to illegal material (be it kid abuse, libel, insightment to hatred of some kind) do you not understand that is not legal under british law. This is what this judge said, this is how he interpreted BRITISH law.

There's no British law which says you can't point at foreign content, illegal or otherwise.

Wrong, as explain by Saracen better than I could.

US rights holders under US law. And it's not the first time the US has pressed for extradition of British nationals obeying British law. When was the last time the US granted extradition of a US citizen to Britain for breaking British law?

He is NOT obeying british law.

Do you think its remotely moral to have a business model which relies on linking to entirely illegal material? Do you think its legal? This judgement puts a big british No, to both.

Primarily, if he's broken British law, let him be tried in a British court, which takes presidence over extradition concerns. Secondly, is the notion that a British citizen living in Britain is subject to US law, is obscene.

He has, but the rights holders aren't british, as such, under the BRITISH law, he can be, after the due BRITISH process, extradited to face US law.

This is what is happening.

I'm more than happy to agree that the extradition is very one sided, and that we have a strange legal framework that makes it very hard for small businesses / indeviduals to have a fair fight, but in this case it really does appear that the guy knowingly broke the law, and made a lot of money of the back of it.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

He's being extradited on the basis of breaking US law while being nowhere near the US, that's being subject to US law. It doesn't matter if it's British bobbies who hauled him away, it's that he's to be prosecuted under an Act voted for by the US Congress, and signed in by a US president.

This.

The thing is though people just don't get it though. Technically,ANY US law could be used as an excuse for extradition even if it were some obscure and stupid law.

Its like if the US enacted a law banning people from wearing,looking at pictures of or discussing stripy trousers. Breaking the law meant you were sent to prison and fined $10000.

Now what if a person over here who was a massive fan of stripy trousers and was the president of the international stripy trousers fan club. He set up a website called stripytrouserslovers.com which had pictures and article about stripy trousers. Wearing or discussing stripy trousers is not breaking the law in the UK in this case.

However,many US citizens accessed this website but the US made no effort to block access from their end for their citizens.

Now,many people started breaking the US law and the US investigators realise many who did visited his website and some even were active forum members. He also got advertising revenue to run his site.

The US consider him to be aiding and abetting law breaking under US law and submit a request to the UK for him to be extradited for trial.

If people want US law in this country they can either start a movement for change so we become another state of the US or change our legal system to a US one,or emigrate to their country.

The US did not keep its end of the bargain with the treaty - because THEIR LAWS GOVERN WHAT THEIR CITIZENS DO ON US SOIL.

If this sort of crap happened in the US people would not stand for it at all. In the UK we have too many apologists.