
Copyright wars heat up: US wins extradition of college kid from England - glogla
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/copyright-wars-heat-up-us-wins-extradition-of-college-kid-from-england.ars
======
rickmb
The current political and legal sell-out to the US makes me, and I believe
many fellow-Europeans, increasingly angry in a way that is fundamentally
different from any anti-American feelings for instance during the Bush-years.

Disagreeing with US foreign policy is one thing, but being on the receiving
end of US meddling through political and legal corruption in a way that
undermines our civil rights cuts way deeper.

~~~
jterce
It makes many Americans increasingly angry as well.

~~~
seanp2k2
USA acts like they own the world, and they must be stopped.

See also: USA prison industrial complex figures out how to break into the
international market.

------
rlpb
The trouble with this is that if the US has a legitimate claim on him, then so
does every other country in the world, since they're all on the Internet too.
And it isn't reasonable for me to be on the Internet and be expected to comply
with the laws of all the countries in the world all at once.

Or is there something specific apart from being on the Internet that gives the
US some kind of special claim on him?

~~~
nextparadigms
Only that US has this kind of extradition treaty with UK. But I assume US has
it with many other countries, too.

Extradition should only happen for the most vicious of the crimes or for war
crimes in my opinion, and it should go both ways. But extradition for
copyright infringement? That's pretty ridiculous, especially when they have to
extradite that country's own citizen.

------
methoddk
This is completely out of hand now. The US is now a country where you are
guilty until proven innocent.

It is disgusting to see domain seizures with no concrete basis of doing so.
This kid is being extradited to the US because his website provided links to
TV shows?

"Copyright infringers" are treated with less dignity and respect than mass
murderers and rapists.

~~~
travisp
>This is completely out of hand now. The US is now a country where you are
guilty until proven innocent.

Am I missing something? Has he been found guilty? Why is an extradition the
same thing as being "guilty until proven innocent"? By definition, extradition
is before a trial has occurred. After he has been extradited is when the trial
will occur.

~~~
toyg
When the extradition process is started, it is because the relevant
authorities have already decided the individual is guilty. Otherwise, they
would not bother spending so much time and effort trying to apprehend him.
Juries are invariably biased against foreigners, so the chances of an
acquittal are basically zero.

~~~
travisp
>When the extradition process is started, it is because the relevant
authorities have already decided the individual is guilty.

So, what is the right approach? Start the extradition process when you don't
believe the individual is guilty? I would hope not. Taking action to bring
someone to trial because you believe they are guilty is entirely different
from the claim that in the US you are now "guilty until proven innocent".

Presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution
in the trial. It does not mean that the prosecution is required to not believe
themselves that the individual is guilty.

~~~
methoddk
>Back in June 2010, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seized
O'Dwyer's tvshack.net domain name after a closed, one-sided hearing before a
judge.

That shows they believed he is guilty before a trial. It was a _linking_ site,
he wasn't hosting anything. Google aids in copyright infringement as people
use their service every day to find download links to things. But they are
fine? The legislation in place across the globe is not equipped to handle
these types of cases. Combine that with ignorant octogenarian judges, equals
one messed up "justice" system.

~~~
andylei
> That shows they believed he is guilty before a trial

if "they" refers to the prosecution: well, i sure hope that the prosecution
believes he is guilty before a trial starts. i think the alternative is that
the prosecution prosecutes people at random?

if "they" refers to the judge: definitely not. seizures like this are because
they have evidence against him and have what the judge believes to be a
reasonable case; this does not mean the judge believes the defendant to be
guilty. maybe you don't think the case is reasonable, and maybe its not, but
its a far cry from "guilty until proven innocent"

~~~
methoddk
A "one-sided" hearing where the offending party has zero chance of defending
themselves.

Totally legit.

------
TylerE
That ARS writeup is pretty one-sided.

I love how they paint him up as a poor student, and don't mention the
$250,000+ he made off the site. This was absolutely not just piracy, but
PROFITING from piracy.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-R...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-
Richard-ODwyer-can-be-extradited-over-TV-website.html)

~~~
nkassis
How was the money made? Ads? Google has ads and finding a video of any show on
there is pretty easy. They are also profiting from infringement.

In the end I just don't get why linking is why if what he did is not it's not
illegal where he is he could still be extradited even if he never had servers
in the US and never promoted directly to Americans (I'm assuming he didn't go
out and ask Americans to his site). Thing is, if his site was in French I
would be there would be no case for extradition.

~~~
TylerE
Yes, ads.

It's a difference of attitude.

I found a snapshot of their site, here are a few bits from their FAQ:

" Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to
spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This
should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but
this is a normal, typical price). " ... snipped price list ... "So, as you
see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several
visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of
time. "

Their main listing page is broken up into genres, which shows they were aware
of the nature of their content, and includes heading that indicate the source
of the content: "Movies" "TV" "Anime", etc. They don't even make an effort to
hide what they are doing. Their submission page mentions "Copying the name of
the show exactly as it is on imdb".

As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some
neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated
collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing.

~~~
nkassis
"As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some
neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated
collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing." I get that this
probably falls into the guilty mind(Mens rea) concept but I still don't find
it correct that the act of linking to copyrighted material or not(well to be
accurate, it's all copyrighted anyway) can be illegal based on context and the
attitude of the person who created that <a>

~~~
TylerE
What if you put it in more physical terms.

If someone went around passing out a list of people in your community who
leave their back door unlocked, would you have a problem with that? After all,
they're only "linking" to potential robbery victims, not actually robbing
them.

Edit: From their About page: "TV Shack™ was launched December 2007 by a
handful of Swedish university students as a place to watch movies & television
online by way of linking to video hosting sites across the web. ... 2009 is
set to be a massive sea of change in online video viewing. TV Shack™ has set
itself a target of being in the top 1,000 visited websites globally by the end
of the year 2009, this will leave it perfectly placed to become an essential
stop for the ever growing online video user base."

Under the English interpretation of mens rea, this would seem to fall under
the strictest level:

"Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his
actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It's his aim or purpose to
achieve this consequence"

~~~
dsthysd
I would not have a problem with that (or don't think it should be illegal at
least). Get rid of the source, not the messenger. In my opinion something such
as that should fall under free speech.

~~~
TylerE
Lots of things that are free speech are not legal. The very concept of Free
Speech only refers to government infringement of your rights.

------
scarmig
Apart from the general ridiculousness of the US extraditing copyright
infringers but not pedophiles:

Do the Brits really not have any outrage over this? If the PRC successfully
extradited an American for some real or imagined digital crime (say, building
and hosting the website of a designated terrorist organization), we'd be in an
uproar.

At least, I hope we would...

~~~
desas
Brits have been complaining about this ever since the treaty was signed. I
think generally we're currently more concerned about changes to our health
system.

Plus the USA is hardly the PRC.

~~~
drucken
Actually, given the harshness of the penal system in every aspect including
their plea-bargaining facet, the US may as well be the PRC compared to the EU.
Also, like the PRC, the US has the death penalty.

Separately, there should be a public interest requirement on extraditions,
whether by treaty or otherwise, just like there is on all other parts of the
UK justice system.

This is a travesty to the individuals involved in this and many other UK-to-US
extraditions and yet another embarrassment to the UK.

~~~
arethuza
Ironically, if he did face the death penalty then he wouldn't be extradited.

------
anon0518
How about we recommend Denmark to start extraditing people to Iran and Saudi
Arabia for Muhammad cartoons? I'm sure it's possible to find a nexus there, if
that's all it takes.

------
archangel_one
Further proof, as if we needed any more, that the current extradition treaty
is a total mess. There's been some publicity recently around it, which might
mean that one day this gets fixed so this doesn't get inflicted on more people
in the future, but that's cold comfort to this poor bloke.

The concept of extraditing someone to face trial in another country with a
possibility of jail for 10 years simply for running a website that links to
copyrighted content is just sick. I would have to think pretty hard to come up
with a crime less damaging than copyright infringement, and destroying a young
person's life over that is a terrible thing.

------
jneal
At what point will non-US websites just start blocking US-based traffic all
together? I suppose one day in the future the US will be like an island on the
internet - disconnected from other country's websites due to situations like
this.

~~~
tomjen3
There is too much money involved it that.

~~~
rickmb
I doubt that. The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose
from blocking US traffic. And I'm not talking minor sites either.

~~~
mike-cardwell
"The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US
traffic."

Also: The vast majority of non-US websites have very little to gain from
blocking US traffic

~~~
grecy
> Also: The vast majority of non-US websites have very little to gain from
> blocking US traffic

That's not true at all. Non-US websites will gain the ability to not have to
follow US law, and not risk being extradited for doing so.

~~~
mike-cardwell
Wrong. The vast majority of websites don't break US law. Not because they went
out of their way to avoid it, but because they simply don't. These sites don't
have anything to gain by blocking the US. Ergo, _quite clearly_ , the vast
majority of non-US websites have nothing to gain from blocking US traffic.
Nothing at all.

------
vibrunazo
I'm not sure I understand the "nexus" part. Does it means the judge ruled that
he specifically targeted the USA with his website instead of it being just a
consequence of them being just another country in the internet? The quote from
judge seem to imply the later. What exactly does this mean?

~~~
tomjen3
It means that the judge is an idiot. The guy didn't have any nexus -- but my
guess is that it was primarily american tv shows that were shared.

------
forrestthewoods
The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not
pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. It is however strange that he's
being extradited and I generally oppose individuals "being made an example
of". I'd much prefer he go through the UK system than the US.

~~~
dav-id
If I recall correctly he didnt break any laws in the UK.

~~~
andylei
that's not what the judge thought. from the article in the telegraph:

> The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr
> O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law

> However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument

~~~
grecy
I read that to mean the judge is not saying he broke British laws, just that
not breaking British laws is not a valid argument.

~~~
andylei
i don't think your reading is correct. one of the basic principles of
extradition agreements is that the law broken has to apply in both countries

------
anons2011
Absolutely disgusting, shame on the US

~~~
function_seven
No, shame on the UK. All they had to do is say "No". (Well, shame on the US as
well).

~~~
mike-cardwell
As a Brit, I'm ashamed of the UK government and once again disgusted by the US
government.

------
mrkmcknz
The main dispute of the US-UK extradition agreement derives from the fact the
US has to show 'reasonable suspicion' however the UK has to show 'probable
cause'.

However some argue there is no difference namely Sir Scott Baker who's reports
stated: "In our opinion there is no significant difference between the
probably cause test and the reasonable suspicion test"

However, critics of the treaty say it is much easier to extradite people from
the UK than the US because the US does not need to present evidence to a
British court.

Conversely, the UK must provide "sufficient evidence to establish probable
cause" in order to secure the extradition of an American citizen.

The other argument is the agreement was post 9-11 for the speedy extradition
of terrorists but between 2003 and 2009 only one of 63 extraditions were
terrorists.

To be honest I don't really know whether the extradition agreement is one
sided, I feel it might have something to do with the respective cases being so
high profile.

Perhaps the UK's punishment of crime in comparison to the US is also an issue,
sentence lengths in the UK generally tend to be a lot less.

~~~
mike-cardwell
From: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16024278>

"between January 2004 and July 2011 there were 130 requests by the US for
people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to
the US."

"the US had never denied a UK extradition request"

------
voidr
And this was all because the guy put a few links on his site...The power of
these trolls is getting scary, they can bribe anyone it seems.

------
alan_cx
What bothers me is the way British governments, regardless of which party is
in power, never ever back the British people. They almost cant wait to sling
them off to who ever wants us. Our governments never back the people at all.
What ever the trouble, you are one your own, they dont want to know.

In contrast, while I dislike the way the US seems to expect to pluck any world
citizen it likes to gamble in its disturbing who can afford the best lawyer
lottery legal process, it's government will fight tooth and nail for its
citizens.

~~~
polshaw
It bothers me too (especially this case), but i think it's relevant to note
that the US has never refused an extradition to the UK, but the UK has refused
several to the US.

OTOH, the US has made more requests, and capital punishment.

------
Joakal
For those that think USA only tackles people profiting from copyright
infringement, there's this person extradited from Australia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Griffiths>

It's likely you'll deal with USA due to American copyrighted content (Hew
Grifftiths), Americans visiting the website (Gambling precedent), profit or
altruism, they can come after you depending on extradition treaties and the
local government's support of USA.

Join the Pirate Party in your area to outlaw domain seizures among other
issues. To protect your current/future business as well other entrepreneurs.
No other political party is doing this to my knowledge.

------
rwmj
This could be very serious for UK programmers.

Are you sure that no code you've written infringes on US patents? Or is used
on a website that encourages the wrong type of copyright infringement?

~~~
mike-cardwell
"Are you sure that no code you've written infringes on US patents? Or is used
on a website that encourages the wrong type of copyright infringement?"

You seem to be implying that if a UK programmer writes some code, and then
somebody goes and uses that code for copyright or patent infringement, they
are at risk of being extradited to the US... Nothing like that has ever
happened and it bares no resemblance to the article under discussion.

~~~
rwmj
I'm implying both that, or that I distribute some software that infringes a US
patent. How do we know that the overreaching arm of US corporations won't try
to sue some little guy in the UK over this?

------
hastur
LOL, the UK is a US colony now.

I can hear History rolling on the floor with laughter.

~~~
mike-cardwell
Only if you're ignorant of the facts.

<http://london.usembassy.gov/gb140.html>

"The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK
under the treaty. While the U.S. does send more extradition requests to the UK
than it receives, this difference is largely due to the differences in the
size of the respective populations. The panel report notes that the U.S. has a
population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than
twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number
of U.S. requests is not disproportionate."

~~~
hastur
The numbers are no excuse in case of a person that did not break UK law.

How about your country signs an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia and you
get extradited and have your head chopped off for having a beer, since alcohol
is illegal in SA? (Yes, an absurd stretch, but you get the point.)

~~~
andylei
> a person that did not break UK law

the judge believes he broke UK law. from the telegraph article:

> The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr
> O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law, because TVShack did
> not itself host copyright material. European law says no crime is committed
> if a website acts as a “mere conduit”.

> However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument from Mr O’Dwyer’s barrister, Ben
> Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers, because of the control the student had
> over what links were posted on TVShack.net and TVShack.cc.

~~~
alextgordon
So that's it? If a judge _believes_ it, then it must be true! He's not even a
proper judge!

~~~
andylei
> So that's it?

not really. he gets to appeal.

> If a judge believes it, then it must be true!

who else do you expect to enforce laws? the better question is, do _you_ know
anything about british law? why do you think your interpretation of british
copyright law is better than the judge's?

> He's not even a proper judge!

i'm not sure what you mean by this.

------
J3L2404
This kid may well have listened to PG to his peril.

Normally there is no advice he gives that is bad, but his "KILL HOLLYWOOD" and
convoluted stance on copyright might make you think that reality is on your
side. It is not.

This fantasy that all movies should be free on the internet is beyond
retarded, it is actually hazardous to your freedom, if you try to profit from
it.

Did he really think he was going to make a quarter million with no
consequences?

Time to put away childish things.

