
British student may be extradited to US on copyright charges - ubasu
http://boingboing.net/2012/01/13/british-man-who-hosted-site-wi.html
======
smokeyj
How exactly do we hold people in other countries accountable for US law? Isn't
this US imperialist bullshit getting a little out of hand? And for what, to
uphold the Entertainment Guild.

Next thing you know we're gonna be extradited to Britain for insulting the
queen.

~~~
njs12345
This case is a bit unusual; if you read the judge's findings
([http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...](http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-
v-odwyer-ruling.pdf)) extradition depends on the fact that the judge is
satisfied that his conduct is also an offense under UK law. It's quite similar
to what happened to the NatWest Three
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three>).

~~~
potatolicious
So... urge the Brits to prosecute. A violation of US law, committed outside of
the USA, by a non-American, is none of the USA's business.

Since it's illegal in Britain _also_ , would it not make more sense (and be
_way_ less sketchy) to prosecute the guy in Britain?

~~~
gburt
You could make the case there are victims in the US though, no?

I don't support the concept of extradition (period, I think?), but there is a
case to be made that the U.S. is aiming to protect its citizens (the media
companies in this case) against wrongs.

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
So before you say/publish anything in the internet you should read the laws of
every country in the world? That is just plain nonsense.

~~~
gburt
I suppose I'm talking morality more than legality.

~~~
tankenmate
I hope for your sake you never say anything derogatory about the Thai
monarchy.

~~~
gburt
I'll concede my claim requires a belief in an absolute morality, which I don't
necessarily, but take it my claim in the following form:

1\. You believe that copyright infringement is a "wrong" committed by one
party on another party (the victim).

2\. A British national commits copyright infringement where the victim is in
the United States.

3\. The United States conceivably has a moral right to seek punishment against
that British national.

I mean, to say otherwise would be to say that copyright existed within a
border. We have treaties explicitly so that isn't so - if there were a place
in the world where copyright law didn't apply, you couldn't post things on the
Internet and expect it to retain its copyright.

I don't support extradition in this case. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe
in an absolute morality, and I'm not even sure I believe that intellectual
property is a good idea on balance, but the moral argument can be made if
you're willing to speak in more concrete terms (i.e., if you're willing to
accept the premise that copyright infringement is a global "wrong")

------
daimyoyo
I had mentioned this before but I think it bears repeating. This case was the
last straw for me. Aweful movies and bad theatergoing experience aside, I
refuse to patronize an industry that targets people across international
borders simply for having links on a website. And I used to watch some 8-10
movies monthly so I hope this case is worth it to the MPAA. Goodbye,
hollywood. Your greed condemns you.

------
patrickod
It's one thing to watch from a distance as the US legal system becomes more
and more unnerving. It's completely different to think that even in your own
home nation such as the UK that US law can cross international boarders and
ensnare you. This is wrong.

------
antr
Next: US Government to extradite Chinese dissidents for saying bad things
about the Chinese Government on the internet.

All of this is just wrong.

~~~
thebooktocome
Except saying bad things about the Chinese Government isn't illegal in the US.
Yet. But still, you've misread the original post.

~~~
trevelyan
Not exactly true. In exchange for their support in the War on Terror, China
managed to get a number of vaguely-defined domestic opposition groups
(particularly ethnic separatist ones) listed as international terrorist
organizations.

I'm not sure the point at which anti-China activities would fall under the
purview of anti-terrorism laws, but I'm not sure the issue is as clean-cut as
you think. A Chinese individual who sent money back home or canvassed for
support might get nailed on quite a few grounds assuming the United States was
willing to be consistent in applying its policies regarding Islamic terrorism
to anti-China groups.

~~~
thebooktocome
Oh wow. Okay.

But I still think

> A Chinese individual who sent money back home or canvassed for support might
> get nailed on quite a few grounds assuming the United States was willing to
> be consistent in applying its policies regarding Islamic terrorism to anti-
> China groups.

seems a bit unlikely. Has it happened yet?

~~~
antr
Misread? All I'm saying is that the extradition is just wrong. You don't need
to be patronising.

------
sirwanqutbi
The student has never been to America in all his life, yet the laws in Britain
has allowed America to grab anyone from anywhere in Britain, and try them.

~~~
dwightgunning
Do you get a visa after you serve the term?

~~~
dguaraglia
Surely not! That's the most retarded part of it all: people who can, and want,
to contribute to the US economy are not welcome in. Now, someone who pissed
off some small-time mafioso running some shitty movie studio? Oh yeah! Bring
them in, try them here and spend a ridiculous amount of money and effort to
punish them!

Tax payers should be breaking things over stuff like this.

------
qqqqqq
I hope that the appeal _does_ go through. This is a dangerous precedent for
our legal system to be setting. I do not like the idea that US law can be
applied to me here in the UK despite having no business in the US itself.

------
mvip
So true:

"[T]his sets a terrible precedent. If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US
because of the content of their web pages hosted in the UK, why wouldn't US
citizens be able to be extradited to Thailand on charges of disrespecting the
king or to China for undermining the government by being critical of it? To
even press this case at all shows either a fundamental undervaluing of the
freedom of speech of everyone, including US citizens, or, more likely, a
belief in the most fundamental of American hypocrisies: the idea that the
rules that the US applies to the rest of the world shouldn't be applied to the
US."

------
noonespecial
For their next trick, the IRS will be sending tax bills the to British
citizens...

I hear dumping a ship-load of tea into a local harbor is a good way to make
your point about this sort of thing.

~~~
patrickod
Am I not mistaken that if you hold dual-citizenship or even a Green Card but
are not living and declaring income in the US that the IRS still expects you
to pay tax in the US?

------
jcampbell1
"why wouldn't US citizens be able to be extradited to Thailand on charges of
disrespecting the king or to China for undermining the government by being
critical of it?"

This sounds like a clever point, but really isn't. Extradition requires that
the crime is also a crime under the local laws. Which is why Swiss Bankers
would never be extradited to the US for tax evasion, and why Americans would
never be extradited to Thailand for making fun on the King.

I don't think copyright infringement should warrant extradition, but I don't
have a good reason why I hold that belief.

~~~
ErrantX
_This sounds like a clever point, but really isn't. Extradition requires that
the crime is also a crime under the local laws._

The argument is being made (quite rightly I think) is that what he did was not
illegal under British law.

So perhaps it is a good comparison :)

~~~
jcampbell1
If he committed no crime under British laws, I guarantee he would not have
been eligible for extradition. The article is so thin on substance that it is
hard to formulate an intelligent opinion on the matter.

Edit:

I just skimmed the PDF, and the kid argued that he shouldn't be extradited for
three reasons: 1) Not illegal in both countries 2) US copyright punishment is
"unjust or oppressive" 3) An extradition would be "disproportionate" relative
to the crime.

I agree with points #2 and #3, but not #1. I think #3 is the strongest
argument. Copyright infringement is not a severe enough impediment to other's
natural freedoms to merit sending a citizen to a foreign country to face
charges.

~~~
ErrantX
Absolutely. In this case I think it is possible to _argue_ (rather than it
being cut and dried) about the legality in the UK - at least to a reasonable
degree.

If the judge decides it is then, fine, that's what he rules :)

I agree; #3 is the most compelling. If anything it's the same reason the CPS
declined a UK prosecution (because to do so would be disproportionate).

~~~
jcampbell1
This whole thing is nuts. A case where there are proportionally as many UK
victims as US victims, but the UK declines to prosecute should not be eligible
for extradition. It does't pass a stink test, nor a "disproportionate" test.

------
xinsight
So people can be jailed for copyright violations now? What happens to a
corporation when it violates copyright? Seems we should all become
corporations simply as insurance.

~~~
tedunangst
Now? Criminal copyright infringement possibly lead to prison time since long
before the interwebs existed.

------
fasouto
The British goverment has drop its pants.

Dangerous precedent... You have to obey British and USA laws.

~~~
esrauch
His lawyer tried to argue that his offense was not illegal under UK law, among
other arguments including that it was disproportionate to his crime to be
extradited.

The ruling spends several pages discussing it, and the ruling concludes
"Accordingly in my judgement I am satisfied the conduct alleged in the instant
request meets the dual criminality test and would be an offence in this
jurisdiction."

In other words, he only has to obey British law. The only reason the ruling
was in favor of extradition was because the crime he committed is also a
British law punishable by at least one year.

~~~
nagrom
However, he hasn't been prosecuted in the UK. Why not?

There's a saying that, if your dog must be shot, it is best to do it yourself.
Farming it out makes the act worse, not better.

If a UK citizen is suspected of committing a crime in the UK, (s)he must be
tried in the UK under UK law and, if found guilty, punished in the UK. The
suspect should never, ever be extradited to a foreign power and punished by
them.

~~~
esrauch
It isn't so trivial to say where the crime is committed when the internet is
related. He is being prosecuted for facilitating copyright _in the United
States_. The people who committed actual copyright infringement in this case
were in the US when they committed their crime, and he was facilitating them
remotely.

The issue is being argued the same as if someone was selling pirated CDs in
the US, and he was facilitating those people and making money doing so in the
UK. Regardless of how you feel about the nature of digital copyright law, it's
really not quite as ridiculous as you are making it sound.

~~~
nagrom
I disagree. He's British, and allegedly committed a crime in Britain, against
British law. He should be tried and, if found guilty, punished in Britain. Why
is that not happening?

It may be the case that he has also committed a crime in the US. If Britain
feels that the crime he is supposed to have committed in the US is heinous
enough in nature to extradite him, then the proper procedures should be
followed of course. However, if the crime is not heinous enough to cause a
prosecution of him in Britain, it is not heinous enough to extradite him to
the US.

In Thailand, I believe it is illegal to insult the person of the King. If
someone in the UK insults the Thai king on the internet in a racially-
aggravated way (and funding the site via advertisements), but not heinously
enough to cause a prosecution in the UK, should they be extradited to Thailand
to face prosecution there? I'd argue that they shouldn't and that this
fictitious case is almost identical in nature to the one under discussion.

Your allegory is flawed (I believe) as I cannot imagine how one could
facilitate copyright violation for pirating CDs remotely, in a way that is
_merely_ speech and is illegal in the host country and would cause extradition
to face prosecution. Can you fill that detail in for me?

(The idea that there is a crime of _facilitating copyright violation_ is
nauseating, by the way. That's similar to the UK's offence of _possessing
information that may be of use to a terrorist_. In practice, almost anything
can be outlawed that way; the law is so broad as to be useless for punishing
any single offence and capable of punishing _any_ offence.)

------
singular
Quite despicable. Potentially ruining somebody's life because of alleged,
highly questionable, loss of profit.

I wonder what would have happened had a smaller country made the same request.

~~~
mjwalshe
Well some European countries have had use the European arrest people for
sealing a sheep in poland.

------
gerggerg
Essential we want to ruin his life over nothing. The net impact of TVshack was
certainly not enough to warrant extradition of a foreign citizen and sending
him to federal prison. Unfortunately, its impact may have even been positive;
encouraging people to be more engaged with new media releases. We're behaving
like true bullies on this case and I think it does a lot to tarnish the idea
that the US is a resilient country of civilized humans.

It's honestly quite shameful.

------
colin-de-vries
There is a Stop Extradition Fair UK Trial for Richard O'Dwyer" petition.

[http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-
uk...](http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk-trial-for-
richard-o-dwyer/sign.html)

~~~
teamonkey
And an e-petition for the amendment of the extradition treaty with the US.

<https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22467>

------
maalox
If he was Muslim, the US would probably ship him to straight to gitmo. I'm
only half joking.

------
linuxhansl
<rant> I hereby demand that all US citizens that violated the law of any other
country to be allow to be extradited into said country.

And also congratulation to "great" Britain to once again confirm that it is
nothing more than the US' lap dog. </rant>

------
nhangen
I never thought I'd see the day where I'd become embarrassed of my country,
but we're moving perilously close to that, in more ways than one.

------
KaeseEs
The extradition treaty between the US and the UK would seem to be bizarre as
hell. On the one hand, a person who hacks into US government computer systems
isn't extradited, and on the other hand a minor and specious copyright
violation does merit extradition.

~~~
peblos
Gary McKinnon looks all but set to be deported. It's just an incredibly long
process of appeals that has stopped it thus far

------
BjoernKW
I'm pretty sure extraditing British citizens to the US for prosecution is
illegal. British citizens are subject to British law and British law alone.
Hence, he can be prosecuted in a British court and if sentenced he might be
extradited to the US but there's no way he can be legally extradited before
proven guilty.

------
nirvana
If he'd travelled to the USA and committed a crime, that would be one thing.

But he's a British citizen in Britian. He's not subject to US laws, he's
subject to British laws.

If the British government can't be bothered to protect its citizens against
this kind of overreach, isn't the british government failing at the most basic
purpose of a government-- to protect people's rights?

The idea that a .NET or .COM domain name subjects you to US laws is asinine
beyond belief. The only degree to which this is true is domain disputes or the
management of that domain name. Nothing else.

A big part of the problem here is that US judges have become errand boys for
the federal government, and are inclined to let federal prosecutors get away
with asinine arguments like the claim that ".COM means US presence.".

~~~
jcampbell1
I don't mean to be rude, but how is this the top voted comment? Extradition
exists for a reason, and this comment lacks a serious depth of thinking and
belongs on reddit.

Start here:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition>

Form arguments based on the restrictions outlined.

~~~
chc
His argument is based around jurisdiction, which _is_ one of the restrictions
outlined.

~~~
cynicalkane
I think part of the grandparent posters's complaint is that nirvana's claim
seems more like wishful thinking on what nirvana wants the law to be, rather
than how it works in practice. The comments below discuss the issues
surrounding this extradition, while the top comment is relatively content-
free. I'm guessing about this, of course, but if that's what motivated his
post I'm inclined to agree.

