British Student Strikes Deal With US Prosecution

[Karloff]

British Student Strikes Deal With US Prosecution

Richard O'Dwyer, accused of copyright infringement, will avoid a US trial.

Richard O'Dwyer [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115273-British-Student-Loses-Extradition-Battle-Over-Copyright-Violation], the British university student on the verge of being extradited to the US to face copyright infringement charges, has struck a deal with his prosecutors. As part of a deferred prosecution agreement O'Dwyer will not face trial, nor will he have a criminal record.

O'Dwyer is the creator of TVShack.net, a guide to torrent sites that hosted television content. In its heyday TVShack.net earned about £15,000 per month in ad revenue, but its creator will have to pay a modest fine, as part of the deferred prosecution agreement, to settle the case. O'Dwyer does still have to go to the US, but only to sign the documentation which, among other stipulations, makes him promise not to infringe copyright again.

O'Dwyer, still a student, has yet to formally comment on this resolution to his dilemma at time of writing. Previously he has alleged that his prosecution was a test case, saying "I think they're trying to use my website as a sort of guinea pig to try to scare everyone else making linking websites." If that truly is so, it would seem the US authorities are cooling on the idea; a quick trip to New York and a fine isn't that frightening.

Source: Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/28/richard-odwyer-us-deal-extradition]


Permalink

 

[baconsarnie]

Well as long as he promises not to infringe copyright again then that's ok.
Glad he wasn't extradited though.

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

Inb4 justification of piracy argument.

See? This is a fine example of how the justice system does well in these matters. A slap on the wrist, an agreement not to do it again, and everyone can be on their merry non-piratey way.

 

[Deshin]

O'Dwyer does still have to go to the US, but only to sign the documentation which, among other stipulations, makes him promise not to infringe copyright again.

I still don't see why extradition was even possible in the first place. If he was breaking laws then isn't it his own country's responsibility to prosecute and charge? I'm reminded of one case where the U.S. tried to sue someone in the U.K. for illegally sharing Beatles music but he was well within legality as under U.K. law the number of years for art to become free cultural heritage property had been reached and so his sharing was perfectly legal.

I really do get the feeling the U.S. tries to overstep its boundaries when it comes to everything copyright infringement. All this is going to do is make more people actively try to block the U.S. from accessing the site like Kim Dotcom has promised with his new Mega site; but if this is the case isn't this just an inverse version of Chin's Great Firewall? Only instead of putting up blockades because they don't want their own citizens to access certain files everyone else is blocking them because they're afraid they're going to come stomping in their own backyard and sue the pants off of them?

 

[RA92]

http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u12/ITS%20A%20TARP_0.jpg

DON'T GO THERE! THEY'LL THROW YOU IN GUANTANAMO AND LEAVE YOU WITH NO TRIAL.

Dammit, ninja'd! That's what I get for keeping a tab open for ten minutes before posting.

 

[RoonMian]

I still don't see why extradition was even possible in the first place. If he was breaking laws then isn't it his own country's responsibility to persecute and charge? I'm reminded of one case where the U.S. tried to sue someone in the U.K. for illegally sharing Beatles music but he was well within legality as under U.K. law the number of years for art to become free cultural heritage property had been reached and so his sharing was perfectly legal.

That is something I didn't understand in the first place. In my country it is against the constitution to extradite a citizen to another country. If you are a citizen in my country and you broke the law and you are IN my country then you will stand trial in my country. If the law you broke doesn't exist in my country then nothing happens. I always assumed that this was just the same in the USA and Great Britain because our constitution pretty much had to pass their watching eye. So I really don't understand at all how the UK could ever consider extraditing him and I even don't understand it on several levels.

 

[Deshin]

http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u12/ITS%20A%20TARP_0.jpg

DON'T GO THERE! THEY'LL THROW YOU IN GUANTANAMO AND LEAVE YOU WITH NO TRAIL.

Dammit, ninja'd! That's what I get for keeping a tab open for ten minutes before posting.

You almost beat me tbh, I spent so long trying to remember how the image properties worked for posts it took me about 10 to get it to even show up. I've been spoiled by image buttons

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

O'Dwyer does still have to go to the US, but only to sign the documentation which, among other stipulations, makes him promise not to infringe copyright again.

I still don't see why extradition was even possible in the first place. If he was breaking laws then isn't it his own country's responsibility to persecute and charge? I'm reminded of one case where the U.S. tried to sue someone in the U.K. for illegally sharing Beatles music but he was well within legality as under U.K. law the number of years for art to become free cultural heritage property had been reached and so his sharing was perfectly legal.

I really do get the feeling the U.S. tries to overstep its boundaries when it comes to everything copyright infringement. All this is going to do is make more people actively try to block the U.S. from accessing the site like Kim Dotcom has promised with his new Mega site; but if this is the case isn't this just an inverse version of Chin's Great Firewall? Only instead of putting up blockades because they don't want their own citizens to access certain files everyone else is blocking them because they're afraid they're going to come stomping in their own backyard and sue the pants off of them?

I'm glad I'm not the only paranoid nut here that immediately thought they'll pepper-spray & arrest him the second he gets off the plane

& yes, the US government is always trying to see what they can get away with when it comes to copyright, among other things

 

[Deshin]

That is something I didn't understand in the first place. In my country it is against the constitution to extradite a citizen to another country. If you are a citizen in my country and you broke the law and you are IN my country then you will stand trial in my country. If the law you broke doesn't exist in my country then nothing happens. I always assumed that this was just the same in the USA and Great Britain because our constitution pretty much had to pass their watching eye. So I really don't understand at all how the UK could ever consider extraditing him and I even don't understand it on several levels.

I'll save you all the legal babble and put it simply: USA says "jump" and Britain not only asks "how high?" but also "when?", "for how long?", and "off of what?" No one in any political seat with a voice has the balls to say "no" to the hulking great neighbour across the pond because keeping up their special relationship is more important than a handful of citizens.

 

[grigjd3]

They may not be sure they can get a conviction and are making a deal that saves him the cost of an attorney. This is a huge problem with the way the law works. You may not actually have committed a crime but the threat of being dragged to court is enough to make you submit to punishment.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Inb4 justification of piracy argument.

See? This is a fine example of how the justice system does well in these matters. A slap on the wrist, an agreement not to do it again, and everyone can be on their merry non-piratey way.

Depends. If he does it again, then the settlement is kind of pointless.

I still don't see why extradition was even possible in the first place. If he was breaking laws then isn't it his own country's responsibility to persecute and charge? I'm reminded of one case where the U.S. tried to sue someone in the U.K. for illegally sharing Beatles music but he was well within legality as under U.K. law the number of years for art to become free cultural heritage property had been reached and so his sharing was perfectly legal.

I really do get the feeling the U.S. tries to overstep its boundaries when it comes to everything copyright infringement. All this is going to do is make more people actively try to block the U.S. from accessing the site like Kim Dotcom has promised with his new Mega site; but if this is the case isn't this just an inverse version of Chin's Great Firewall? Only instead of putting up blockades because they don't want their own citizens to access certain files everyone else is blocking them because they're afraid they're going to come stomping in their own backyard and sue the pants off of them?

I still don't see why extradition was even possible in the first place. If he was breaking laws then isn't it his own country's responsibility to persecute and charge? I'm reminded of one case where the U.S. tried to sue someone in the U.K. for illegally sharing Beatles music but he was well within legality as under U.K. law the number of years for art to become free cultural heritage property had been reached and so his sharing was perfectly legal.

That is something I didn't understand in the first place. In my country it is against the constitution to extradite a citizen to another country. If you are a citizen in my country and you broke the law and you are IN my country then you will stand trial in my country. If the law you broke doesn't exist in my country then nothing happens. I always assumed that this was just the same in the USA and Great Britain because our constitution pretty much had to pass their watching eye. So I really don't understand at all how the UK could ever consider extraditing him and I even don't understand it on several levels.

Because the internet is international and he broke US law for which the US can claim that Americans were using his site (And they probably were, too). I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Still saying it linked to torrent sites, eh Escapist? It wasn't torrents at all, it was streaming sites. Like Youtube, but usually not Youtube itself. Stay classy, Escapist.

 

[1337mokro]

50$ says Admiral Akbar is right. The second he gets of that plane he will be bumrushed by black suits and put into an "undisclosed" location ready to be sacrificed to the MPAA to secure a good harvest of bribes for all the politicians.

If I can sign a EULA with an American company from my bedroom, then he can sign a US contract in the UK.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Because the internet is international and he broke US law for which the US can claim that Americans were using his site (And they probably were, too). I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

Extremely iffy justification, though. If the internet is international then nobody can claim any part of it, surely? It'd be like committing a crime in international waters - anyone who actually wanted you for something could claim you. Universal jurisdiction etc.

I can't see the Americans accepting that for a single second when the boot is on the other foot. If an American hosts and runs a website in his native country about something which is deeply illegal in Britain (let's say improperly buttering one's crumpet or leaving the biscuit in the tea so long it crumbles soggily apart) then Britain isn't going to be able to claim jurisdiction just because British citizens accessed the website.

 

[RoonMian]

Because the internet is international and he broke US law for which the US can claim that Americans were using his site (And they probably were, too). I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

Yeah, but as I said: In my country it is against the constitution to extradite a citizen of my country to another country to stand trial there. The trial is in my country when a law was broken. And since the constitution of my country was pretty much written with the USA, the UK and France looking over the shoulders of the authors the USA and the UK even considering that just boggle the mind.

And when you turn it around: The USA are demanding something from the UK they are not willing to do themselves. When several years ago CIA agents kidnapped and tortured German citizen Khaled al-Masri and set him free again in some Albanian forest Germany as a reaction asked Interpol to extradite 10 CIA agents should they ever leave the USA again. Every nation supporting Interpol complies with the request (meaning that those agents can pretty much never visit one of the I think 180 something countries supporting Interpol again) except the USA who don't want to give up those people to a German trial and because of that Germany didn't even bother asking the USA to extradite them.

So again: I just don't get it where the USA get the balls to ask that of the UK and why the UK even considered it.

 

[UniversalRonin]

That is something I didn't understand in the first place. In my country it is against the constitution to extradite a citizen to another country. If you are a citizen in my country and you broke the law and you are IN my country then you will stand trial in my country. If the law you broke doesn't exist in my country then nothing happens. I always assumed that this was just the same in the USA and Great Britain because our constitution pretty much had to pass their watching eye. So I really don't understand at all how the UK could ever consider extraditing him and I even don't understand it on several levels.

I'll save you all the legal babble and put it simply: USA says "jump" and Britain not only asks "how high?" but also "when?", "for how long?", and "off of what?" No one in any political seat with a voice has the balls to say "no" to the hulking great neighbour across the pond because keeping up their special relationship is more important than a handful of citizens.

To quote Metallica 'You know it's sad but true.'

 

[UniversalRonin]

Because the internet is international and he broke US law for which the US can claim that Americans were using his site (And they probably were, too). I don't think any country other than the US would bother prosecuting in that situation though, whether it's because they don't care or because they don't have the pull to go through with it.

Extremely iffy justification, though. If the internet is international then nobody can claim any part of it, surely? It'd be like committing a crime in international waters - anyone who actually wanted you for something could claim you. Universal jurisdiction etc.

I'm not an expert, and I don't know if this is right, but if his website was hosted using a US server, wouldn't that mean that his site was subject to their law? (Again, not an expert or authority of any kind, just a guy with a suggestion)