British Student Loses Extradition Battle Over Copyright Violation
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
On behalf as a US citizen: pbbbt!.
I've been a long time follower of this site but I've never been particularly compelled to comment about what my favorite Metal Gear Cutscene was or which of Yahtzee insults was the best of the week. There's a lot, A LOT, of let's chat about video game websites on the internet and I saw no great benefit to joining one more but the headslapping behavior displayed in this thread has impelled me to registration.
Before I even start on the specific things people have brought up let me start by saying that illegal recreational software sharing is the LEAST sympathetic of lesser crimes. There's plenty of nuanced, situational lesser crimes in the world where we can conduct deep debates about the spirit of the law vs. the letter or law vs. ethics vs. morals and so forth.
Is it okay to steal a potato to feed you starving family? Is it okay to pee on a street corner if you really, really have to go and nothing's open at 2A.M.? All very nuanced, intellectual questions.
Someone who illegally downloads Skyward Sword or Alvin and The Chipmunks 2: The Squeakwel does not even come remotely near that category. They are bored, listless, entitled children (or, if above the ago of majority, man-babies). There is no necessity in their actions. Their motive is boredom, an inflated sense of self entitlement and "'cause it was easy". If they were denied these downloads these passive, spoiled babies would have to find a slightly less entertaining way to be entertained. No way for anyone to feel sorry for that or anyone who supports their languid, self centered life style. If they're bored, learn to read books. Thrift shops sell them for 50 cents and libraries let people borrow 5 at a time for free.
Now as to why this person was extradited: First, THERE ARE TREATIES IN PLACE TO HANDLE THIS SORT OF THING. The U.S.A. and U.K. have signed several treaties allowing for extradition in cases similar if not exactly like this sort of thing. The second reason THIS GUY IS KIND OF A SCUM BAG. The U.S. doesn't NEED to apply any sort of pressure to get this guy out of the U.K. I mean if you're a judge and some snot nosed script kiddy walks into the courtroom with his Burberry cap and chavwad coat because he was making $15,000 a month for copypasting a few blocks of PERL script which allowed him to profit on the effort of everyone (uploaders, downloaders and especially content creators) you'd try expel him from your country only because the Magna Carta no longer allows you to sentence him to be drawn, quartered and fed to the Scottish (as was the custom for such people long ago.)
As to why the same thing does not happen if we transgress Islamic Decency Laws in Durkadurkastan. First, THERE IS NO SUCH TREATY WITH DURKADURKASTAN. It goes both ways, if we had such a treaty they'd be subject to some sort of our laws/statues/concepts of civil rights and let's face it, they break a lot of them. It would be ridiculous for any such treaty to exist. On the other hand it's good policy to have mutual and open enforcement of intellectual property between the U.K. and U.S.A. If such property laws stopped at the border some British guy could just distribute AMerican made video games willy nilly and Michael Bay could make a Dr. Who movie starring Shia LeBeouf as the Doctor, Mila Kunis as Amy Pond and Chris Tucker as the voice of the TARDIS. Do you really want to take that risk, U.K? Do you really want to force America to use the Michael Bay option? The second reason being DURKADURKASTAN ISN'T A REAL COUNTRY.
As to the reasoning of "He did not actually host the videos, only provided a complete service where they could be cataloged and accessed. You can find similar stuff with Google. Why don't they go after Google?" I'm not really buying that line. Sure, a person could hide a polaroid of a nude ten year old on a book or a half gram of cocaine inside a hollowed out barbie doll and mail it via UPS and if UPS didn't find it would be foolish to charge UPS with trafficking. Google links to a lot of stuff and the majority is processed automatically but excluded manually, similar to UPS which handles a huge volume of stuff every day. If, say, half of UPS's cargo was cocaine filled toys and books brimming with illegal photos there would be an investigation to say the very least. Also, THIS GUY IS KIND OF A SCUM BAG. There's a good chance they're just putting a little pressure on him. He'll fold like a seven-high, turn over his server logs and testify against anyone in the USA if they promise him he won't do a day in a real jail.
In response to stuff in the line of "Doesn't congress know we're in financial crisis? Why are they worrying about software piracy." We all know that the power of congress is in creating legislature, right? YOU CAN'T FIX THINGS BY LEGISLATING HARDER. Congress has already passed many laws regarding the financial situation. Now they will see how those laws pan out using economic data and they will adjust or create more policy to deal with shortcomings of the current policy.
They can't just pass a nonstop stream of laws to deal with the recession until it stops. that would be crazy. "Okay, fellow congressmen, bill 1568999 regarding the implementation of mortgages for real estate in commercial areas has PASSED, good work. Is the recession over yet? No? Really? It's been ten whole seconds! Um... Here's bill 8656294, a .75% reduction on capital gains tax, everyone quickly! PASSED! OH GOD! THE RECESSION ISN'T OVER YET! Does anyone have any more bills? Okay 590278, 408975, and 29756 Subsidized road building in Nebraska, Credit Card Usury Reform and Removing the Last S From The Word Congress Bill To Save on Printer Ink. Passed! Passed! Passed! How can the recession still be here, we legislated at it for a full three minutes now? Okay, I want everyone to grab a sheet of paper and draft a new bill, whatever you have at the end of a minute, we're passing it, no time to debate. We just have to just keep tossing a nonstop stream of legislature ay this recession until it dies!"
Also, PIRACY IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. Not a huge part but a really unregulated part in a growing financial sector. Seriously, movies and software are two of the few products that Americans can still make better than anyone and which we can export competitively. If an illegal download prevents someone from a legitimate buy that is a tiny dent in the GNP, tax base and possibly employment statistics. Now we've been tweaking the economic formula since the country was born and so it's reasonable to say that even if it's not great it's at least, competent and aside from some wildcards (flat tax/all sales tax/ nothing but gold advocates, ect.) we're just fiddling with the knobs.
Illegal downloading OTOH is a phenomenon only a few decades old and which has statistically been a petty loss until recently. The laws covering it are crude and ill suited. There's CLEAR room for improvement. Not saying SOPA is a good idea, it's not well defined, but congress is not going to turn a blind eye toward billions in theft (except by Haliburton. lol)
I've been a long time follower of this site but I've never been particularly compelled to comment about what my favorite Metal Gear Cutscene was or which of Yahtzee insults was the best of the week. There's a lot, A LOT, of let's chat about video game websites on the internet and I saw no great benefit to joining one more but the headslapping behavior displayed in this thread has impelled me to registration.
Before I even start on the specific things people have brought up let me start by saying that illegal recreational software sharing is the LEAST sympathetic of lesser crimes. There's plenty of nuanced, situational lesser crimes in the world where we can conduct deep debates about the spirit of the law vs. the letter or law vs. ethics vs. morals and so forth.
Is it okay to steal a potato to feed you starving family? Is it okay to pee on a street corner if you really, really have to go and nothing's open at 2A.M.? All very nuanced, intellectual questions.
Someone who illegally downloads Skyward Sword or Alvin and The Chipmunks 2: The Squeakwel does not even come remotely near that category. They are bored, listless, entitled children (or, if above the ago of majority, man-babies). There is no necessity in their actions. Their motive is boredom, an inflated sense of self entitlement and "'cause it was easy". If they were denied these downloads these passive, spoiled babies would have to find a slightly less entertaining way to be entertained. No way for anyone to feel sorry for that or anyone who supports their languid, self centered life style. If they're bored, learn to read books. Thrift shops sell them for 50 cents and libraries let people borrow 5 at a time for free.
Now as to why this person was extradited: First, THERE ARE TREATIES IN PLACE TO HANDLE THIS SORT OF THING. The U.S.A. and U.K. have signed several treaties allowing for extradition in cases similar if not exactly like this sort of thing. The second reason THIS GUY IS KIND OF A SCUM BAG. The U.S. doesn't NEED to apply any sort of pressure to get this guy out of the U.K. I mean if you're a judge and some snot nosed script kiddy walks into the courtroom with his Burberry cap and chavwad coat because he was making $15,000 a month for copypasting a few blocks of PERL script which allowed him to profit on the effort of everyone (uploaders, downloaders and especially content creators) you'd try expel him from your country only because the Magna Carta no longer allows you to sentence him to be drawn, quartered and fed to the Scottish (as was the custom for such people long ago.)
As to why the same thing does not happen if we transgress Islamic Decency Laws in Durkadurkastan. First, THERE IS NO SUCH TREATY WITH DURKADURKASTAN. It goes both ways, if we had such a treaty they'd be subject to some sort of our laws/statues/concepts of civil rights and let's face it, they break a lot of them. It would be ridiculous for any such treaty to exist. On the other hand it's good policy to have mutual and open enforcement of intellectual property between the U.K. and U.S.A. If such property laws stopped at the border some British guy could just distribute AMerican made video games willy nilly and Michael Bay could make a Dr. Who movie starring Shia LeBeouf as the Doctor, Mila Kunis as Amy Pond and Chris Tucker as the voice of the TARDIS. Do you really want to take that risk, U.K? Do you really want to force America to use the Michael Bay option? The second reason being DURKADURKASTAN ISN'T A REAL COUNTRY.
As to the reasoning of "He did not actually host the videos, only provided a complete service where they could be cataloged and accessed. You can find similar stuff with Google. Why don't they go after Google?" I'm not really buying that line. Sure, a person could hide a polaroid of a nude ten year old on a book or a half gram of cocaine inside a hollowed out barbie doll and mail it via UPS and if UPS didn't find it would be foolish to charge UPS with trafficking. Google links to a lot of stuff and the majority is processed automatically but excluded manually, similar to UPS which handles a huge volume of stuff every day. If, say, half of UPS's cargo was cocaine filled toys and books brimming with illegal photos there would be an investigation to say the very least. Also, THIS GUY IS KIND OF A SCUM BAG. There's a good chance they're just putting a little pressure on him. He'll fold like a seven-high, turn over his server logs and testify against anyone in the USA if they promise him he won't do a day in a real jail.
In response to stuff in the line of "Doesn't congress know we're in financial crisis? Why are they worrying about software piracy." We all know that the power of congress is in creating legislature, right? YOU CAN'T FIX THINGS BY LEGISLATING HARDER. Congress has already passed many laws regarding the financial situation. Now they will see how those laws pan out using economic data and they will adjust or create more policy to deal with shortcomings of the current policy.
They can't just pass a nonstop stream of laws to deal with the recession until it stops. that would be crazy. "Okay, fellow congressmen, bill 1568999 regarding the implementation of mortgages for real estate in commercial areas has PASSED, good work. Is the recession over yet? No? Really? It's been ten whole seconds! Um... Here's bill 8656294, a .75% reduction on capital gains tax, everyone quickly! PASSED! OH GOD! THE RECESSION ISN'T OVER YET! Does anyone have any more bills? Okay 590278, 408975, and 29756 Subsidized road building in Nebraska, Credit Card Usury Reform and Removing the Last S From The Word Congress Bill To Save on Printer Ink. Passed! Passed! Passed! How can the recession still be here, we legislated at it for a full three minutes now? Okay, I want everyone to grab a sheet of paper and draft a new bill, whatever you have at the end of a minute, we're passing it, no time to debate. We just have to just keep tossing a nonstop stream of legislature ay this recession until it dies!"
Also, PIRACY IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. Not a huge part but a really unregulated part in a growing financial sector. Seriously, movies and software are two of the few products that Americans can still make better than anyone and which we can export competitively. If an illegal download prevents someone from a legitimate buy that is a tiny dent in the GNP, tax base and possibly employment statistics. Now we've been tweaking the economic formula since the country was born and so it's reasonable to say that even if it's not great it's at least, competent and aside from some wildcards (flat tax/all sales tax/ nothing but gold advocates, ect.) we're just fiddling with the knobs.
Illegal downloading OTOH is a phenomenon only a few decades old and which has statistically been a petty loss until recently. The laws covering it are crude and ill suited. There's CLEAR room for improvement. Not saying SOPA is a good idea, it's not well defined, but congress is not going to turn a blind eye toward billions in theft (except by Haliburton. lol)
Really not what I was saying at all. [user]emeraldrafael[/user] made the 'policing the world' comment, not me. I was referring to his comment about 'when the world lets you', and showing examples of when the US has used economic might to force legislation on foreign powers that are meant to be it's allies. Whilst using tongue-in-cheek humour.Volf99 said:
I agree with this statement. It would be nice to see some deeds for once.Volf99 said:
OT: I just can't believe this its a weak display of both the USA, the UK and the media which doesn't cover the subject. At least not in my country which is next to the UK.
You seem to resent the brits quite a lot.Volf99 said:
This is coming from a country that has introduced more fear mongering than any other nation on Earth, A country with incredibly lulzy crime rates, A Country with a laughably lower education level than Jordan, and spray on cheese. And THEN it gives executive powers that most governments don't even have to it's fucking entertainment industry. If any country has lost the right to it's self imposed world police status, it's America... America is nothing special, it's a country that has had it's golden age, and now it's falling into the pit of mediocrity, it's trying desperately to hold on to the very last remnants of it's authority, at the expense of their deficit, quality of life, and overall citizen happiness. Accept it America doesn't deserve my sympathy.
What do you propose we do? You hold all the cards here and are using them to enforce your laws on our people in our own country. If I write the Prime Minister, I'll get a polite letter back from his secretary's assistant's template folder thanking me for my interest and saying that the issue is "important to us". If I write my MP, we might get some moaning about it in parliament but nothing that will translate into policy.Volf99 said:
Your government's agency is attempting to bring charges against a British citizen living in Britain for actions which, though illegal in the US, are perfectly lawful in the UK. If you can't see anything wrong with this state of affairs, then we disagree on a very fundamental level indeed.
Perhaps you shouldn't take criticism of your country's policies quite so personally. It's not like you're the one who drafted them.
He is accused of, in effect, stealing income from parties in the U.S., so this seems fair to me.
Sad, but fair.
Sad, but fair.
Okay there are two possibilities of what happened in this case:
1.
The UK government and the District Court judge agreed that Mr O'Dwyer had fulfilled all the criteria required for extradition under the US-UK extradition treaty, which primarily consist of proving jurisdiction, reasonable suspicion, criminality, and the crime warrants a sentence of over one year. The judge decided that, as US company's were those affected, they can reasonably claim jurisdiction (in the same way that if someone had never left the UK used his computer to rob the crown jewels, the UK could claim jurisdiction). Reasonable suspicion is pretty bloody obvious, seeing as his own website advertised itself on the fact that you could watch movies for free, saving you a lot of money in cinema tickets and movie rentals - indeed, O'Dwyer's legal didn't even contest this aspect. He ruled that violation of S.107 (2A) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was indeed a comparable offense in the UK to what he was being charged with in the US what, thus rendering it an extraditable offense. In the UK, violation of this act carries a two year.
As evidence, I cite the ruling of District Judge Purdy, The Government of the United States of America v Richard O'Dwyer
2.
The US government, being in the pocket of the MPAA and various other vested interests, put pressure on the UK government through some unspecified means, then put pressure on an independent district judge through unspecified means, to get there hands on a man who has done no wrong so that they can show the world their evil power and ensure that all bow down to them in all matters relating to copyright legislation. They didn't put similar pressure on the judges involved in Abu Hamza al-Misri because a terrorist is just a terrorist and the US doesn't care, despite having spent over a trillion dollars on attempting to fight Islamic terror over the past decade, and invaded two middle eastern countries on this premise presumably because, in reality, they desperately need sand for a life size model of Schloss Neuschwanstein the US is building so that it can win the G20 beach sculpting competition.
As evidence for the second hypothesis I cite the confused, ill-researched ramblings of people on the internet, many of whom it appears would be tempted to use the term "sheeple" to describe me
1.
The UK government and the District Court judge agreed that Mr O'Dwyer had fulfilled all the criteria required for extradition under the US-UK extradition treaty, which primarily consist of proving jurisdiction, reasonable suspicion, criminality, and the crime warrants a sentence of over one year. The judge decided that, as US company's were those affected, they can reasonably claim jurisdiction (in the same way that if someone had never left the UK used his computer to rob the crown jewels, the UK could claim jurisdiction). Reasonable suspicion is pretty bloody obvious, seeing as his own website advertised itself on the fact that you could watch movies for free, saving you a lot of money in cinema tickets and movie rentals - indeed, O'Dwyer's legal didn't even contest this aspect. He ruled that violation of S.107 (2A) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was indeed a comparable offense in the UK to what he was being charged with in the US what, thus rendering it an extraditable offense. In the UK, violation of this act carries a two year.
As evidence, I cite the ruling of District Judge Purdy, The Government of the United States of America v Richard O'Dwyer
2.
The US government, being in the pocket of the MPAA and various other vested interests, put pressure on the UK government through some unspecified means, then put pressure on an independent district judge through unspecified means, to get there hands on a man who has done no wrong so that they can show the world their evil power and ensure that all bow down to them in all matters relating to copyright legislation. They didn't put similar pressure on the judges involved in Abu Hamza al-Misri because a terrorist is just a terrorist and the US doesn't care, despite having spent over a trillion dollars on attempting to fight Islamic terror over the past decade, and invaded two middle eastern countries on this premise presumably because, in reality, they desperately need sand for a life size model of Schloss Neuschwanstein the US is building so that it can win the G20 beach sculpting competition.
As evidence for the second hypothesis I cite the confused, ill-researched ramblings of people on the internet, many of whom it appears would be tempted to use the term "sheeple" to describe me
This is fucking ridiculous. I have a question, WHY IS ANYONE TAKING AMERICAN LEGAL DECISIONS SERIOUSLY?
Why the hell should they have this authority over everyone alse? Is this the 20th century where countries could still boss others around based on military and economic strength?
I thought we'd outgrown this stupid bullshit but apparently I was wrong.
Why the hell should they have this authority over everyone alse? Is this the 20th century where countries could still boss others around based on military and economic strength?
I thought we'd outgrown this stupid bullshit but apparently I was wrong.
I'm frankly amazed at how much the Europian countries let the U.S. get away with. By my knowledge, the American Service-Members' Protection Act, a.k.a. the The Hague Invasion Act was never repealed. That act, signed by Bush jr., essentially gave the U.S. president the right to use any and all means deemed neccesary to free any U.S. citizens should they be held by the International Supreme Court headquartered in The Hague. So the U.S. president basically doesn't need to ask Congress for permission to send an army into a fellow NATO country to break out soldiers that are suspected of crimes against humanity in other nations. And it includes some strong-arming and intimidation to makes sure others either don't acknowledge the Court or sign agreements that prohibit them from ever handing over U.S. citizens to the court. Cause lord forbids any Americans are ever held accountable before anyone but themselves. Meanwhile, the Netherlands cheerfully helps the FBI by extraditing anyone they suspect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
Y'know I thought it was the United States of America not the People's Republic of China.
I mean prosecuting a citizen not of your country from something not illegal in their home country? Times like this I wish the US would just get their shit together and piss off with picking on smaller countries.
I mean prosecuting a citizen not of your country from something not illegal in their home country? Times like this I wish the US would just get their shit together and piss off with picking on smaller countries.
Wow, I'm American and I'm pissed about this. On behalf of the United States of America, I formally apologize for my country... even if I'm not sure they deserve it...
You, wrong? Hmph.Use_Imagination_here said:
Why? Because there are treaties in place between the two countries allowing for extradition and promotion the mutual protection of intellectual property rights. The adhere to these treaties we are able to extradite people across national boundaries for crimes committed over national borders. In addition to mere copyright violation crimes such as the digital transmission of child pornography, banking fraud, identity theft and other crimes easily conducted over the internet may or may not be covered by international treaties.
As long as an formally backed asymmetrical trade system exists between two countries one will be able and more than willing to boss the other one around. Furthermore any significant corporate entity has the ability to effect policy via direct bribery, lobbying or economic incentives.
First off, don't take the comment about Africa/China/India seriously, I was just being a smart a**. Second, it's not that I hate the Brits, its that I get tired of the US being bad mouthed by west Europeans. I get it, you don't think highly of the US, that doesn't mean you need to go on and on about why you dislike us every chance you get(like your comment above). Its not that I'm some fierce nationalist, it's that I get fed up with being talked down to by Europeans. This case is a perfect example of complete blame on the US, because while I agree that we should not have a English citizen brought over here, I also don't think that the UK government is free of blame.Robert Ewing said:
I don't mind US policies being criticized, I mind that a fair number of people in this thread want to put complete blame on my country, instead of realizing the fault is on both the US(for trying to get him over here) and for the UK(for complying). The way some people responded in this thread, you would be forgiven for thinking that he was abducted by the CIA or something and brought here.Speakercone said:
You sir, truly are the master of speaking long and saying nothing at all. You should be a politician. Well that's not entirely fair, you pointed out quite a lot of things that prove my point.Youdonotexist said:
My comment was meant to imply that I am against a goverment being able to arrest a member of another country for things that are perfectly legal in their homeland. Please do note the legal part because I'm not quite sure you understand. As long as there is no law against what he is doing in HIS country, it is my opinion that he should be either left alone or the law should be changed. The fact that it's illegal somewhere else is irrelevant. Bending a picture of kim yong il is illegal in North Korea but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to piss on a painting of him if I really wanted to. If you wish to make an argument against my opinion you are more than welcome to do so, but don't lecture me about things that I already know.
And as I said (in my opinion) america lost the right to any sort of respect for their political system or legal system a while ago. But if any person from england that I've ever heard say anything about their goverment is to be believed, than so did they.
Really? The guy explained it perfectly.Use_Imagination_here said:
Your post just shows that you don't get the explanation.
Your North Korean example: We don't uphold that law because the countries didn't agree on upholding that law internationally.
However in the case of copyright infringement there is an international agreement upon it. Whether you break it at home or infringe upon a company that is overseas you are still breaking the international law.
There really isn't much more to say besides this is a very basic concept of law that everyone should have to understand, and if you don't understand this basic principle then you really shouldn't be commentating on law.
Shadie777 said:
The issue at hand is a legal one, but the underlying problem is political. Right now, Britain does not look great to me and the Kingdom seems far from being united. It's a shame, really. I still hope all of this, or at least a significant part of it can be fixed. Seeing UK government as easy prey and pushovers doesn't amuse me. It sucks.
Well that would explain it perfectly if it were not for the fact that the only international copyright agreement signed by the UK (The berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works) doesn't cover this situation. The law that says that what he is doing is illegal is an american one.Rednog said: