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

"A British student accused of breaching US copyright could face trial in the United States after a British court ruled that he can be extradited from the UK.
A judge at Westminster Magistrates Court agreed with US prosecutors that 23-year-old Richard O'Dwyer should face trial in America rather than in the UK.
The Sheffield Hallam University undergraduate has been fighting extradition since he was arrested for setting up a website which allowed people access to films and TV shows for free."

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16148629

My question is, on what grounds did the judge agree with the US prosecutors?

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:

Imagine if Britain did that to a US Citizen!

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1

Mr Dangermouse

18

Shocking.

Shouldn't even be illegal.

America, **** yeah

Nope, if it were then Google, Yahoo and any other search engine you can think of would be illegal. Sadly this is never understood by judges, which is why The Pirate Bay got shut down (temporarily) and Newzbin was repeatedly taken to court and eventually blocked by BT.

Reply 4

crocker710

14

I saw this on 'Look North' and a copy rights lawyer was on there and said the only reason that the US wanted him to be extradited to the US was because he wouldn't be convicted under British law :facepalm2:

ergo he didn't break the laws of the country he is resident and has citizenship in. He's been charged with 'conspiracy' to commit copy right infringement :facepalm:

What is this judge playing at. I hope it gets appealed and overturned.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 5

Bobifier

13

The reason the US is giving for demanding his extradition is that he made a lot of money from US citizens, which strikes me as tenuous. It is certainly true that his website was not hosted or run from the US, and it is perhaps fair to say that he can't help who uses it. It is completely beyond me how it can possibly be lawful to extradite him just because the US say we should. Indeed, when the extradition treaty was drawn up, Nick Clegg speculated that the government cared more about its relationship with the US than about its own citizens. Given his track record, I naturally expect him to be fully behind the extradition.

Reply 6

Snagprophet

17

Original post by Bobifier

The reason the US is giving for demanding his extradition is that he made a lot of money from US citizens, which strikes me as tenuous.

I thought that was from advertising revenue, but regardless, it isn't against UK law to make money from Google or other ads. Just because the companies were American doesn't mean the US government have some kind of jurisdiction here.

Reply 7

Otkem

8

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-filesharing-extraditiontre80c15c-20120113,0,7135296.story

I do not have a shred of sympathy for him. He is part of the problem that costs the film industry millions each year, and I hope that he is given a lengthy prison sentence so that it serves as a deterrent.

What do you think?

Reply 8

crocker710

14

Original post by Otkem

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-filesharing-extraditiontre80c15c-20120113,0,7135296.story

I do not have a shred of sympathy for him. He is part of the problem that costs the film industry millions each year, and I hope that he is given a lengthy prison sentence so that it serves as a deterrent.

What do you think?

He didn't commit copy right infringement :facepalm2:

He hosted a website that contained links to other sites. His site acted, in affect, as a quick search engine for people looking to break the law. He didn't force them to download the things contained in the links he provided. He's also a British citizen, who operated his computer from the UK, on non-US owned servers, if and it's a big if, he committed an offense he should be tried here; and under British law there's nothing written about 'conspiracy to commit copy right infringement' with which he's been charged.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 9

Otkem

8

Original post by crocker710

He didn't commit copy right infringement :facepalm2:

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

Reply 10

elitepower

13

This is crazy, why should he be tried in the US? Think of the impact on his family and it is not like he deliberatly set out targeting the US.

Reply 11

Aj12

18

Original post by crocker710

He didn't commit copy right infringement :facepalm2:

He hosted a website that contained links to other sites. His site acted, in affect, as a quick search engine for people looking to break the law. He didn't force them to download the things contained in the links he provided. He's also a British citizen, who operated his computer from the UK, on non-US owned servers, if and it's a big if, he committed an offense he should be tried here; and under British law there's nothing written about 'conspiracy to commit copy right infringement' with which he's been charged.

Thing is he would have gone through a number of extradition trials here. It takes a lot to extradite someone and it can be challenged so there must be a strong case against him.

Reply 12

lucas13

15

shouldn't be tried in the us as the website was set up in the uk.

Reply 13

crocker710

14

Original post by Aj12

Thing is he would have gone through a number of extradition trials here. It takes a lot to extradite someone and it can be challenged so there must be a strong case against him.

The case that is brought by the US government (heavily lobbied by a wealthy film industry) against him is that the people who used the links were from the US; and by 'conspiring' to letting US citizens break copy right laws he should be tried in the US. That's as I understand it; but it seems tenuous. I read a report about what happened in the magistrates court and the case against him. It looks weak; and as you said the number of appeals would make you think they'd have something more substantial, but I've not read anything which would suggest so.

Reply 14

User414413

18

There shouldn't be anti-piracy laws in the first place, they're pointless. There are over 1,000,000 such sites. I feel sorry for this kid, his being used as an example to stop people pirating. Lets hope he isn't extradited.

Reply 15

Dewsy

11

I quite strongly disagree with this - I fail to see why the US can extradite a UK citizen for allegedly committing a crime in the UK. Why do they have the right to prosecute him? He should be tried in the UK under english law. Anyone know the reasoning behind giving the extradition the go ahead?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 16

Minimalist__

12

Perhaps it's also to do with the content that was being shared? I haven't heard of the website, but TV Shack probably means it was mostly TV programmes/movies I'm assuming. Most of them were probably US shows, so maybe that's why they feel like it's a breach of US copyright laws that should be dealt with there?

Who knows. I despise the whole anti-file-sharing stuff anyway. The movie and music industry especially, despite being inherently greedy, make enough money without relying on CD/DVD sales and there are plenty of examples where allowing the sharing of things for free has been just as successful.

Anywab, that rant's for another thread. This example does just seem to be the US' way of flaunting their new zero-tolerance crackdown on anti-piracy. There are tons of higher profile websites that they could have targeted, but they seem to have gone for an easy target.

Reply 17

spyka

6

So does that mean if I were to post a link on this forum to a TV show on YouTube or Megavideo that the owners of TSR would be hauled in front of the courts in the states?

Reply 18

Tefhel

12

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.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 19

Craig_D

17

It's ridiculous that US law can take precedence over UK law over an action committed in the UK; being allies does not equate to being accountable to their law. If he can't be tried under UK law then he should be let go, the fact that his action offends those in another country is not of any consequence. Would the UK courts pay any attention if Iran requested that all the UK's adulterers - who can't be tried under UK law - instead be sent to Iran so they can be tried under Iranian law and then stoned, because their action offends Iranian culture? What's more, I can hardly see a US citizen being extradited to the UK for linking to torrents of Doctor Who or Top Gear episodes, or whatever.

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

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you