'Piracy' student Richard O'Dwyer loses extradition case

danielf · 13-01-2012, 15:51

Ouch. Imagine being extradicted for something that isn't even a criminal offence in the UK.

Quote:

A Sheffield student can be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement allegations, a judge has ruled.

Richard O'Dwyer, 23, set up the TVShack website which US authorities say hosts links to pirated copyrighted films and television programmes.

The Sheffield Hallam University student lost his case in a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

If found guilty in a US court he could face up to five years in jail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-16544335

**Russ** · 13-01-2012, 15:55

If the yanks want one of ours, they'll get them in the end, regardless. Sickening.

mikeyek · 13-01-2012, 15:57

Just the big guys with the cash to get their own way, same as the case against Newzbin and the cases against the the site owners of datacave and the author of a tut for hacking digi boxs.

Isnt the first, and wont be the last.

**Kymmy** · 13-01-2012, 16:15

I'd like to know where was the website hosted? US or elsewhere..

If US then you can understand the ruling but if not then it's a whole other matter and the extradition shouldn't be allowed

danielf · 13-01-2012, 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I'd like to know where was the website hosted? US or elsewhere..

If US then you can understand the ruling but if not then it's a whole other matter and the extradition shouldn't be allowed

According to this, neither he nor his servers were in the US.

Quote:

Neither O'Dwyer nor his servers were located in the United States during the time he operated TVShack. But the US government is nevertheless seeking to have him extradited to the United States to face criminal copyright infringement charges.

**Kymmy** · 13-01-2012, 16:24

Just learned that the site wasn't even in the US so I'm totally perplexed as to how the US can even ask for extradition???

This really needs the government to step in

Mr Angry · 13-01-2012, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Just learned that the site wasn't even in the US so I'm totally perplexed as to how the US can even ask for extradition???

Because they maintain his actions adversely affected their economy by facilitating the infringement of copyright(s) and he profited directly from doing so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

This really needs the government to step in

Not a mission of that happening as far as I can see.

RizzyKing · 13-01-2012, 17:32

Now i admit i am not at all up on this whole piracy thing (your talking to someone here who still thinks piracy involves shipping) but if he didn't actually have any copyrighted matierial is he guilty just for showing some people where it is. Also arn't google the same the one person i know who routinely downloads stuff always uses google to find it so why arn't they getting hammered.

Mr Angry · 13-01-2012, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Now i admit i am not at all up on this whole piracy thing (your talking to someone here who still thinks piracy involves shipping) but if he didn't actually have any copyrighted matierial is he guilty just for showing some people where it is. Also arn't google the same the one person i know who routinely downloads stuff always uses google to find it so why arn't they getting hammered.

Google are routinely sued for copyright infringement.

danielf · 13-01-2012, 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Google are routinely sued for copyright infringement.

But most of that relates to Google's book project were they actively scan (copyrighted) materials, and host in their servers. They aren't (from what I can tell in that link) routinely sued for linking to information on sites owned by third parties, which is what Rizzy (presumably) meant, and which is the closest equivalent, and part of the defense in this case.

Mr Angry · 13-01-2012, 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

But most of that relates to Google's book project were they actively scan (copyrighted) materials, and host in their servers. They aren't (from what I can tell in that link) routinely sued for linking to information on sites owned by third parties, which is what Rizzy (presumably) meant, and which is the closest equivalent, and part of the defense in this case.

As I said, they have been routinely sued for copyright infringement. They have also had papers filed / suits threatened for their linking to copyrighted material.

Just because someone else does something which is illegal and appears to get away with doing so (the "Google defence") does not make it legal for others to follow suit (no pun intended).

**Kymmy** · 13-01-2012, 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Google are routinely sued for copyright infringement.

Surely though if this person is being extradited in a criminal case then google should face the same criminal style case.

This seems to be purely the Americans picking on a student just to say to everyone who has this sort of site that you;re not safe and we can get you where ever you are. Yet if they went for those mass uploading/sharing or even those storage sites (usenet/file servers) they'd make a lot bigger impact in worldwide copyright infringment figures..

What's next extraditing a UK driver doing 70 on a UK dual carriageway for crashing into an American doing 55 because that it the spewed limit over there???

danielf · 13-01-2012, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

They have also had papers filed / suits threatened for their linking to copyrighted material.

I read that to mean that they've not actually been sued for linking to copyrighted materials, just threatened. Is that right? (And if not, have they lost any of these cases)?

Quote:

Just because someone else does something which is illegal and appears to get away with doing so (the "Google defence") does not make it legal for others to follow suit (no pun intended).

Yeah, but it appears that the (il)legality of what they are doing is still disputed. Either way, if they have been sued and not found guilty, then there is at least a precedent in the jurisdictions involved.

Tuftus · 13-01-2012, 18:38

But isn't this all just like saying that if I hosted a website that basically implied that you could steal a DVD from Tesco if you so wished to do so, then that would be a good place to do it?

That's all a bit bonkers, Shirley?

Mr Angry · 13-01-2012, 18:39

Kymmy / Danielf,

The short answer is this.

The chickens are coming home to roost. Downloading copyrighted material without the owners permission is illegal. Full stop.

The American Government (in concert with the French and UK Governments - more particularly the UK because of the 2006 extradition treaty) are determined to make headway in their fight against the widely held perception that copyright infringement is a "victimless crime".

This young man is their latest target.