Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Google and Bing being charged? The last time I looked they were search engines, their raison d'etre is broad. You can use it for anything you want.

    Secondly his site was a forum for the exchange of where copyrighted material is, i.e. a means to find it. Search engines only let you see pages that already exist, they don't create them which is what his site was doing.

    If he was linking child porn, incitement to violence/rioting or making bombs (while making money out of it) would this be just fine?

    Finally, his site was not just a linking site. Firstly it was a forum. Secondly he was complicit in linking. Thirdly, most importantly, there was much content embedded.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iso Herrk)
    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.
    But the site hosted NO illegal content at all and therefore the owner of the forum has done nothing illegal. It's not complex at all:

    Question: Is the site hosting content?
    Answer: No
    Conclusion: Nothing illegal is taking place.

    It's really that simple. And the site did have another purpose, discussion of TV shows. I would bet that most of the posts there were simply discussions about the latest episode of a show, which is not illegal and would constitute another use of the site apart from sharing links.

    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.
    But there are laws in the UK about aiding in the sharing of child porn. There is nothing in the law saying you can't set up a forum where people can talk about sharing copyrighted content.

    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.
    But it still wasn't hosted there. On my blog I often embed YouTube videos of content from BBC America. Does that mean I should be shipped over there to be prosecuted?

    (Original post by Iso Herrk)
    Search engines only let you see pages that already exist, they don't create them which is what his site was doing.
    Search engines certainly do generate pages, every search you do is generating a unique page based on your results. It's exactly the same as a forum post with links on. The only difference is a forum post is manual while a search result page is created on the fly by a computer.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Otkem)
    You've quoted me three times today. Take a hike.

    I do not see what is funny about someone deserving the death penalty.
    Nah, I'll quote you as many times as I like thanks, I just find your fascist views utterly bizarre (much like the rest of the forum as demonstrated in the 100s of negs you're getting these days), you're clearly after angry reactions in your outrageous opinions (the death penalty should only ever be for mass murderers), so I thought I'd laugh instead of giving you what you want
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Britain is America's bitch /:

    Poor guy. The whole situation is ridiculous.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    But the site hosted NO illegal content at all and therefore the owner of the forum has done nothing illegal. It's not complex at all:

    Question: Is the site hosting content?
    Answer: No
    Conclusion: Nothing illegal is taking place.

    It's really that simple. And the site did have another purpose, discussion of TV shows. I would bet that most of the posts there were simply discussions about the latest episode of a show, which is not illegal and would constitute another use of the site apart from sharing links.



    But there are laws in the UK about aiding in the sharing of child porn. There is nothing in the law saying you can't set up a forum where people can talk about sharing copyrighted content.



    But it still wasn't hosted there. On my blog I often embed YouTube videos of content from BBC America. Does that mean I should be shipped over there to be prosecuted?



    Search engines certainly do generate pages, every search you do is generating a unique page based on your results. It's exactly the same as a forum post with links on. The only difference is a forum post is manual while a search result page is created on the fly by a computer.
    No it is complex because you are going under the assumption that only hosting copyrighted material is illegal and no other permutations of that, which I think is completely wrong under US law, under Federal law he has almost definitely committed a serious offence. The UK prosecution for the Home Office arguing for his extradition clearly agree, Home Office counsel must agree as the Home Secretary takes there advice and can refuse consent if she wants to - she has given no indication that she'll do anything of the sort, he's going. The British District Judge, independent from the government has agreed to his extradition. Then you have to look at the American prosecutors, they'll be confident he's done something illegal and when he goes before a Federal judge, the judge will agree. This isn't frivolous. Plus we have one of the most indendent judiciaries in the world, probably second to the US system, and the High Court and Court of Appeal have upheld similar extradition orders recently (McKinnon, Tappin) and if I'm right the Supreme Court has refused to hear their appeals. It is complex and it certainly isn't some grand conspiracy.

    How is a search engine the same as a forum. If I and a few paedophiles set up a site that lets people post links to child porn, that is not the same as someone finding it on Google. Google just provides links to pages corresponding to search parameters. Essentially by creating a forum, you'd be increasing search results in any engine as you increase the amount of information, you make it easier to find them.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatRainbows)
    Britain is America's bitch /:

    Poor guy. The whole situation is ridiculous.
    You think its funny him making money out of other peoples work? What if it was you how would you feel. Especially when he'd been warned repeatedly and he kept doing it. A custodial sentence needs to follow 5-7 years is probably appropriate, there are several aggravating circumstances.

    The US uses consecutive not concurrent sentencing like we do here. If you commit multiple crimes you serve one sentence after another. If the prosecution get the judge to agree he could be sentenced for each charge. Instead of 5 years for each each charge and serving them all at once it could be 5 years then once that's up another and another...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iso Herrk)
    No it is complex because you are going under the assumption that only hosting copyrighted material is illegal and no other permutations of that, which I think is completely wrong under US law, under Federal law he has almost definitely committed a serious offence. The UK prosecution for the Home Office arguing for his extradition clearly agree, Home Office counsel must agree as the Home Secretary takes there advice and can refuse consent if she wants to - she has given no indication that she'll do anything of the sort, he's going. The British District Judge, independent from the government has agreed to his extradition. Then you have to look at the American prosecutors, they'll be confident he's done something illegal and when he goes before a Federal judge, the judge will agree. This isn't frivolous. Plus we have one of the most indendent judiciaries in the world, probably second to the US system, and the High Court and Court of Appeal have upheld similar extradition orders recently (McKinnon, Tappin) and if I'm right the Supreme Court has refused to hear their appeals. It is complex and it certainly isn't some grand conspiracy.
    Who said anything about a conspiracy? All I'm saying is under BRITISH law he's done nothing wrong and that the reason this is going ahead is due to a complete lack of understanding of the technology involved by the judges.

    Again, if linking to copyrighted content or sites that host this material is illegal then Google is also committing the same crime. The only reason the lawyers for the studios don't go after Google and force them to filter their search results is because Google have more money than them and can outspend them in court.

    How is a search engine the same as a forum. If I and a few paedophiles set up a site that lets people post links to child porn, that is not the same as someone finding it on Google. Google just provides links to pages corresponding to search parameters. Essentially by creating a forum, you'd be increasing search results in any engine as you increase the amount of information, you make it easier to find them.
    Seriously stop with the talk of child porn. It's not the same and is governed by actual laws. This case is not based on any law in the UK.

    Especially when he'd been warned repeatedly and he kept doing it.
    Again, he was warned to stop doing something that's not illegal here. Why should he shut down his site? If I asked you to stop doing something completely legal you wouldn't listen or stop would you?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I Kant Spall)
    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?
    Yes. And as we all know what happened after the dust had settled (Iceland refusing to pay us back the money they lost), I'm personally glad those powers were used. Though I do see you concern about terrorism laws being used out of context.

    While I personally feel his actions should be illegal under UK law (no it is nothing whatsoever like Google - Google catalogues near enough everything, this site only finds links for illegal content with the implicit purpose of facilitating illegal content distribution) they are not. As such, I agree with the others saying it's just as ridiculous as the UK requesting extradition for legal under-age sex in Spain etc.
    • 8 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iso Herrk)
    You think its funny him making money out of other peoples work? What if it was you how would you feel. Especially when he'd been warned repeatedly and he kept doing it. A custodial sentence needs to follow 5-7 years is probably appropriate, there are several aggravating circumstances.

    The US uses consecutive not concurrent sentencing like we do here. If you commit multiple crimes you serve one sentence after another. If the prosecution get the judge to agree he could be sentenced for each charge. Instead of 5 years for each each charge and serving them all at once it could be 5 years then once that's up another and another...
    Firstly, he didn't. Secondly, the 'crime' took place on UK soil. It isn't a crime in the UK. So the guy did nothing wrong. Maybe if the UK illegalised it, I would be fine with it provided he wasn't sent abroad for no reason.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iso Herrk)
    You think its funny him making money out of other peoples work? What if it was you how would you feel. Especially when he'd been warned repeatedly and he kept doing it. A custodial sentence needs to follow 5-7 years is probably appropriate, there are several aggravating circumstances.

    The US uses consecutive not concurrent sentencing like we do here. If you commit multiple crimes you serve one sentence after another. If the prosecution get the judge to agree he could be sentenced for each charge. Instead of 5 years for each each charge and serving them all at once it could be 5 years then once that's up another and another...
    We don't use concurrent sentencing here - what a ridiculous system that would be.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Firstly, he didn't. Secondly, the 'crime' took place on UK soil. It isn't a crime in the UK. So the guy did nothing wrong. Maybe if the UK illegalised it, I would be fine with it provided he wasn't sent abroad for no reason.
    He did - he made thousands in ad revenue by running a site which links to work created by other people and uploaded by other people.

    It not being a crime doesn't mean he did "nothing wrong" - he just didn't do anything illegal.
    • 8 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    He did - he made thousands in ad revenue by running a site which links to work created by other people and uploaded by other people.
    So? I found pirated content by using Google. Is Google going to face any consequences?


    (Original post by callum9999;35846604
    It not being a crime doesn't mean he did "nothing wrong" - [B
    )

    he just didn't do anything illegal[/B].
    Exactly. So why should he be charged for something that isn't even illegal?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iso Herrk)
    You think its funny him making money out of other peoples work? What if it was you how would you feel. Especially when he'd been warned repeatedly and he kept doing it. A custodial sentence needs to follow 5-7 years is probably appropriate, there are several aggravating circumstances.

    The US uses consecutive not concurrent sentencing like we do here. If you commit multiple crimes you serve one sentence after another. If the prosecution get the judge to agree he could be sentenced for each charge. Instead of 5 years for each each charge and serving them all at once it could be 5 years then once that's up another and another...
    People still go to the cinema for the experience, whether you can watch it online or not. The film industry make a huge amount and to be honest the people who watch pirated movies probably weren't going to buy the movies in the first place. Soon it will be illegal to lend someone a dvd.

    Props to this guy for finding a way to make money.

    This is a british matter, a british citizen with a british website. Nothing to do with the US.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    So? I found pirated content by using Google. Is Google going to face any consequences?

    Exactly. So why should he be charged for something that isn't even illegal?
    I didn't say he should be charged. You denied he made any money out of it and I'm just pointing out he did.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    Who said anything about a conspiracy? All I'm saying is under BRITISH law he's done nothing wrong and that the reason this is going ahead is due to a complete lack of understanding of the technology involved by the judges.

    Again, if linking to copyrighted content or sites that host this material is illegal then Google is also committing the same crime. The only reason the lawyers for the studios don't go after Google and force them to filter their search results is because Google have more money than them and can outspend them in court.



    Seriously stop with the talk of child porn. It's not the same and is governed by actual laws. This case is not based on any law in the UK.



    Again, he was warned to stop doing something that's not illegal here. Why should he shut down his site? If I asked you to stop doing something completely legal you wouldn't listen or stop would you?
    What are you on about Google is completely different. Imagine via Google you couldn't find links to copyrighted materal (which is why most of these sites exist in the first place). So if someone creates a site offering links, surely it would most likely appear in Google. So Google is at fault for someone creating a site with illegal material on and it appearing in a Google search result.

    Your understanding of the law is somewhat lacking. Firstly this isn't big evil powerful corporations prosecuting someone lol, this is the American government with tax payers money (ironically here it's the British government prosecuting him). They sue corporations all the time in Federal court.

    The judge doesn't understand how websites work, WTF? Judges are lawyers, they aren't computer experts, forensic scientists, businessmen, scientists yet they rule on all of these by listening to what experts say. How you can have such sweeping contempt for judges and offer no evidence is embarrassing.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Good
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Firstly, he didn't. Secondly, the 'crime' took place on UK soil. It isn't a crime in the UK. So the guy did nothing wrong. Maybe if the UK illegalised it, I would be fine with it provided he wasn't sent abroad for no reason.
    He made no money?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iso Herrk)
    Google and Bing being charged? The last time I looked they were search engines, their raison d'etre is broad. You can use it for anything you want.

    Secondly his site was a forum for the exchange of where copyrighted material is, i.e. a means to find it. Search engines only let you see pages that already exist, they don't create them which is what his site was doing.

    If he was linking child porn, incitement to violence/rioting or making bombs (while making money out of it) would this be just fine?

    Finally, his site was not just a linking site. Firstly it was a forum. Secondly he was complicit in linking. Thirdly, most importantly, there was much content embedded.
    Okay fine you want a debate about Google obeying the law?

    Google advertising can be used by anyone, it doesn't matter what your advertising it can be top result.

    For example, the Olympic tickets were featured on Google ad-words by an third party vendor, which is against the law in the UK because no third party vendor can sell the tickets. I don't see any USA citizen or charges against the company be followed up. According to Google it isn't up to them to check every single advertising to ensure it isn't breaking the law in that country. Therefore in this case the USA should be going after the users of the site not the owner.

    I mean Google makes money of piracy so why is it considered illegal if someone else uses the same principles?

    In addition to that statement in 2005 there was article on 'how to make bombs' which Google was advertising (Since then they have update their algorithm to prevent this from happening again, but no charge was brought to the company!) (If i can remember the article i will post it here)

    Back to the case in hand. What the student did in the UK is not illegal. However what he did is immoral. I don't believe this man should spend any jail time in the USA because of the fact he is British citizen and should be trailed in the UK, which of course isn't a law here.

    I personally believe that if people want things to change then you need to make it law in the country of resident. If american doesn't want their content around the world then they no want to do.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    :0 he comes from the same town as me! Something actually happened what will the local paper do? The most recent main headline was that someone thinks they saw a ghost in a pub=/

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 27, 2012
New on TSR
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.