British student who created TVShack will be extradited to the US.

Reply 20

theths

12

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/sweden-filesharing-religion-idUSL6E8CB54V20120112

Just sayin'.

Reply 21

Olie

20

Original post by Otkem

He encouraged it, which in my eyes is sufficient for the electric chair.

Lol, you're funny :rofl:

Reply 22

Blue & Red Lights

If he goes to jail he would get raped so badly he won't be able to walk straight, they could refuse extradition because of that

Reply 23

Otkem

8

Original post by Olie

Lol, you're funny :rofl:

You've quoted me three times today. Take a hike.

I do not see what is funny about someone deserving the death penalty.

Reply 24

FinalMH

16

I don't see Google being charged? Bing being charged? This is an outrage and i hope if it does get to the highest court and it gets over turn, the chance of it getting to the two highest courts is small :frown:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 25

Iso Herrk

Original post by FinalMH

I don't see Google being charged? Bing being charged? This is an outrage and i hope if it does get to the highest court and it gets over turn, the chance of it getting to the two highest courts is small :frown:

If he's so innocent why doesn't he just go there and plead his case?

Reply 26

Bellissima

16

disgusting behaviour... and of course he will have a fair trial in the states? WTF how can our governement do this, he is a BRITISH CITIZEN!!!!! f-ing pigs!!

this actually sickens me! why is our government so far up americas arse?!?!?!

Reply 27

gateshipone

10

Original post by Iso Herrk

If he's so innocent why doesn't he just go there and plead his case?

Because the lawyers fighting for him to be sent to the US lie and distort the truth about how sites like his work and judges don't tend to understand how sites like the one created by this guy work.

Reply 28

Iso Herrk

Original post by gateshipone

Because the lawyers fighting for him to be sent to the US lie and distort the truth about how sites like his work and judges don't tend to understand how sites like the one created by this guy work.

Wasn't his site shut down multiple times, he was warned multiple times and yet instead of shutting it down he sprang it up elsewhere? WTF

Reply 29

gateshipone

10

Original post by Iso Herrk

Wasn't his site shut down multiple times, he was warned multiple times and yet instead of shutting it down he sprang it up elsewhere? WTF

Dunno about the history of the site, but I do know how it works and it's not illegal. Just because he's asked to shut it down doesn't mean he has to, again, it's not illegal to link to stuff. If it were then Google, Bing, Yahoo and a million other sites would have to be shut down.

Reply 30

username607202

17

Funny how they extradite this young man, whereas we get to keep Fergie.

Reply 31

Ruthie!

16

That is absolutely disgraceful!
And to think SOPA hasn't even been passed yet.. It'll be ten times worse if it does.

Reply 32

Iso Herrk

Original post by gateshipone

Dunno about the history of the site, but I do know how it works and it's not illegal. Just because he's asked to shut it down doesn't mean he has to, again, it's not illegal to link to stuff. If it were then Google, Bing, Yahoo and a million other sites would have to be shut down.

He can't claim ignornace though which has been one of his defences, for people who know the case and the history they know he's talking codswallop. What he should have done immediately was seek counsel and find out where he stands if he didn't want to comply with what they'd asked, he didn't.

Reply 33

danny111

3

Original post by Tefhel

It's pretty ridiculous IMO. If it was a British website, hosted here, and he broke no British law, then how the hell is the US allowed to extradite him if he had nothing to do with the US? Or am I missing something?

Is it not the equivalent of the UAE asking for people to be extradited there for kissing in public in the UK, or us extraditing teenagers from Spain for having sex because their age of consent is 13 and ours is 16? I swear that Team America World Police seems to be getting truer with every passing day.

But maybe I don't have all the facts.

Lulz at the examples.

Reply 34

Caponester

10

Original post by Bobifier

Given his track record, I naturally expect him to be fully behind the extradition.

Quoted for truth.

Reply 35

Rascacielos

19

Original post by TheImperialist

He is a British citizen, its a British based website and the crime was committed in Britain. How can he be tried in the United States? :eek:

These were my thoughts exactly. I feel like I should know about extradition laws but I haven't really got the foggiest what they're all about. I figured I must have been missing something because it seemed absurd to me that a UK citizen who has no legal links with America could be tried over there.

But looking at this thread, apparently this is actually the case... :eek:

Anybody care to explain?

Reply 36

gateshipone

10

Original post by Iso Herrk

He can't claim ignornace though which has been one of his defences, for people who know the case and the history they know he's talking codswallop. What he should have done immediately was seek counsel and find out where he stands if he didn't want to comply with what they'd asked, he didn't.

His defense is that what he did was not illegal, which is true. Why should he comply with something when it's not illegal?

Reply 37

Rascacielos

19

Original post by Craig_D

linking to torrents of Doctor Who or Top Gear episodes, or whatever.

Reply 38

Iso Herrk

Original post by gateshipone

His defense is that what he did was not illegal, which is true. Why should he comply with something when it's not illegal?

It was a forum yes, whether that is illegal or not will be a complex question of law, but on the face of it what one can be in no doubt of is that Google/Yahoo etc. are search engines, firstly their raison d'etre isn't to direct you to copyright material, bomb making instructions or child porn, O'Dwyer's site was solely a forum for exchange of copyright material, whether links were provided by him or the users. It didn't have any other purpose.

Google/Yahoo can serve many purposes illegal/legal, what other purpose did O'Dwyer's site have? If O'Dwyer had been linking sites that let you watch videos of child porn or how to make yourself a homemade car bomb, would that have been OK? (while they were coining it in doing it) They're just as illegal.

Touching on the "linking" assumption, it wasn't just a linking site firstly there was a forum where links could be exchanged by everyone, much unlinke a search engine.

Secondly the "linking" argument can be completely debunked as much of the material was actually embedded into the site, i.e. you went there, just as you do iPlayer and could watch something.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 39

I Kant Spall

2

What's happening here is that the UK government is using post-9/11 powers, granted by the hubbub in the height of the "War on Terrorism", in a non-terrorist context. The law that enabled him to be extradited, Extradition Act 2003, is an absolute sham of an act and has been since its initial passage. The Labor government back then was incredibly subservient and just did everything the US demanded. The Conservatives/Lib Dems have had 2 years to do something about this horrid legislation and mere lip service on the BBC is apparently too much to ask for.

Anyone else remember that ridiculous news story about that Icelandic bank which had its funds frozen by the UK using laws proposed to combat terrorism?

British student who created TVShack will be extradited to the US.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you