This of course begs the question: If an American is running a site hosted in America with mostly American visitors how would the US react if a foreign government wanted to extradite him and possibly put him in jail for many years?
Probably not well.
The site was not a search engine.
It may have had a search function, but the links were added manually by contributors (who O'Dwyer selected), and O'Dwyer exerted a great deal of control over the content that was included on the site.
It was almost certainly illegal in the US (authorising copyright infringement). A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law (O'Dwyer's editorial control over the site prevented him from using a "mere conduit" defence) and thus approved the extradition.
O'Dwyer is bang to rights as far as the law currently stands. At this point it's more a case of challenging the absurdity of the law (simply linking to infringing material being an offence) and the absurdity of extraditing a young man to be tried in a foreign court under a foreign jurisdiction for such an offence.
Then he should be tried in the UK.
A questionable assertion, given that:
1. in the only BitTorrent tracker case to have come to court, Oink, the defendant was found not guilty http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6998784/Oink-mu...
2. the CPS (UK prosecuting authority) regard running a BitTorrent tracker to be "a civil rather than a criminal matter" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8345801/Prosecuto...
The very idea that you can effectively be transported to a country that you have nothing to do with and committed no crime in just purely because the big boys with the big wallets say so is sickening.
His website was accessible in the US by design (one could forbid US visitors in the ToS, and by geoip), and the "harm" from his supposed crime occurred, for those US users, in the US, not inside his server.
What sucks about this case is that it seems incredibly unlikely that linking constitutes a felony copyright infringement, because no copyrighted material is ever directly encountered. It seems much more likely that only a misdemeanor infringement occurred (if any), for which the UK does not extradite to the US.
Have you allowed people to upload stuff to your website and didn't stop them enough? Well, it looks like you're liable for conspiracy for copyright infringement of something. A criminal penalty of $150k and 5 years jail per infringement.
Oh, it looks like you did it to several copyrights. That's a jailin'. Who cares if you haven't visited USA before! Like that ever stopped USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths
As a British citizen I'm truly sickened by the idea that someone can be extradited over something which is potentially not even a crime, when the biggest name in the game is still sat with million dollar legal teams ready to pounce if they get pulled up on it.
No one should have to concern themselves with the laws of every nation on Earth when building a website. There is usually not enough time in your life to consider the laws from only your home country.
Does anybody have any legal specifics here? I wonder if this is something that could happen to just random bittorrent users?
For example, this would not be possible in France (i live there) as the country never extradites any of its citizens for any reason - this will stand even if you committed a crime abroad and managed to get back, you could only be tried back home -
As for the british kid, I support him 100% but it seems that the UK has signed very liberal agreements with the US concerning their citizens...
Firstly, building a website (presumably with the domain registered under his name) like this in the current legal climate is basically asking for trouble. Especially hosting it in Sweden (where the TBP was).
Secondly , in the interview he asked the Police if he should get a solicitor, and decided not to get one because he might have to wait a couple of hours? WTF?
If you are arrested by the police and possibly being charged with an imprison-able offence (or really any offence) of course you should get a solicitor , why would this even be a question?
He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign country for a decade for posting links on the internet.
The police (particularly the met) are out to get an easy prosecution and fulfill their statistical requirements rather than fair and honest justice. They will pretend to be your friend and offer you an easy way out that doesn't exist to do this.
The best thing you can do is say nothing at all. Shut your gob and refuse to say a word. Everything should be replied to with "no comment".
I was arrested when I was 14 (for something minor) and I wasn't dumb enough to refuse legal representation.
He knew what he was doing. He is alleged to have made ~£150,000 in advertising revenue from the site.
He had his TVShack.net domain seized by ICE in June 2010. Any kid simply making a mistake would have given up at that point.
Instead, within a matter of days he set the site up again on a new TVShack.cc domain, adding a picture of NWA and the statement "F* the police" to the top of the site.
This particular kid may have been dumb (and immature given his flaunting), but to focus on his failings is ignore the greater phenomenon that he's merely fodder to. I certainly don't think he deserves to be put into the meat grinder, but if he had been a bit smarter and avoided it, we'd merely be talking about a different stupid kid.
The really unfortunate thing is that these halfway-there worse-is-better technologies like napster/torrent/bitcoin only serve to immunize the existing power structures by alerting them to the phenomenon of revolutionary communication technologies and giving the state incremental practice at blocking protocols.
His website has been in existence since 2007.
Napster had been shutdown years before and was still winding through the courts, for example, and The Pirate Bay was an (Internet) household name.
As such, and while this wouldn't take away from the stupidity of not getting a solicitor involved, maybe he asked the question not because he wanted an answer, but because he thought there was a chance the policeman might say "no, you don't need one of those" and create a problem for the prosecution?
They are allowed however to try and sway you away from the idea.
Even if he was trying such a trick , the fact is that he didn't request one.
This is just hollywood abusing their position to fight the advancement of tech and society simply because it disagrees with their business.
I do not believe there is anything inherently unethical about copyright infringement in pirating movies or tv shows. It's only technically illegal (and unethical in the sense that it's against the law) because copyright protections were put in artificially as a regulation to control for a certain outcome, like tariffs, taxes, or a dam. Hollywood simply won't admit the dam isn't working and trying to antagonize and criminalize those who go against the flow directed by regulation.
Calling pirating movies or tv shows unethical is only justifiable if pirating is akin to stealing in the physical sense, but it's not, and so it's not unethical. If someone were to project a copyrighted movie on to a giant wall, it's like saying all unauthorized onlookers are doing something unethical, when really it doesn't matter how many illegal onlookers there are as it won't affect the creator. If the content creator can't feed himself because everyone is "stealing" his work then he should a) find a new line of work or b) find a way to properly monetize it. Anything of value can be converted to money.
That being said I do think the content creators provide something valuable, and this should be protected. The issue here is that it's only going to get more expensive to enforce the current business models of content creators. The expense not only comes in the form of cost to gov't and the businesses themselves, but also in the form of DRM and other side effects of enforcement that really degrades the whole product chain. In the worst case scenario we never find a way to adequately support a film and tv industry. It's cultural benefits will be missed but we'll just shift our attention to something else. Life goes on. It's existence was probably arbitrary in the first place. Copyright laws didn't enable the TV & film industry. Enforceability of those laws did that, and the enforceability is eroding way whether they like it or not.
Summary: It's unethical to break the law (assuming the law was instated ethically), which, in theory, is a set of rules everyone agrees to play by. However pirating movies and tv shows is not inherently unethical as it is just an arbitrary law we put in place to control for an outcome. Linking to copyright infringement should be neither of these.
I can't following your reasoning on this. Is your point that copyright laws have been instated unethically?
Why does it matter that they are arbitrary if people generally agree that copyright is good?
> If the content creator can't feed himself because everyone is "stealing" his work then he should a) find a new line of work or b) find a way to properly monetize it
Seriously? So, if people choose to consume someone's work, yet avoid paying for it, then it's the content creators fault?
No. My point is that copyright infringement is only wrong in the eyes of the law, and not wrong inherently. Since copyright infringement isn't inherently wrong, the law can be redefined to adjust to changing realities.
> Seriously? So, if people choose to consume someone's work, yet avoid paying for it, then it's the content creators fault?
It's no one's "fault" as there's nothing wrong with not having a movie/tv industry. Human attention and efforts would simply shift and focus on something else that may or may not be better than movies/tv. I could be on the other side of the universe, and having received a stray signal of copyrighted work and consumed it, it would not affect the original content creator one bit.
Again, the content creator simply shouldn't do it if it doesn't pay. Who told them to do whatever it was that they were doing in the first place? If there is no consumer compensation then why do it? Either find a way to get people to compensate you, or do something else.
Movies and tv, while a critical part of current American culture, isn't a necessity of life and is actually a relatively recent development. People who make movies/tv shows aren't entitled to their jobs and their way of making money just like how I'm not entitled to be able to make money by leaving freshly squeezed lemonade outside with a sign that says "pay for it pleeze" while I sit on my lazy ass in the living room watching tv. It's my fault for not figuring out a better way of monetizing my lemonade (if people steal it) even if it is technically illegal to steal that lemonade. Who says creative content has to be protected. The industry only came to being because it was technologically easy to protect copyright but that's clearly not the case anymore. The sad state of affairs now is for the industry to find a cheap way to protect their revenues, or abandon it. It's reality and there's nothing inherently wrong with not being able to monetize content by selling licenses to view it. There are many ways to monetize these things and copyright just happened to be the most convenient way for decades.
It would be illogical, perhaps unethical even, for me to want more of that content while not supporting it in any way. However there's a difference between paying simply because I consumed something and paying because I want more of something. If I consume something and do not wish any more content to be produced of that nature, then I should have the right to not support the content creator, as whether or not I pay for the content will have no repercussions on the content creator except as to enable him to continue producing. They are not entitled to take my money automatically just because of "consumption" unless it is defined by law (which I have explained can and should be changed). Not paying for content is the public's way of saying that they do not support content creators. Therefore content creators should just stop and do something else.
I'm not convinced that there's a difference, legally or ethically, though it would be interesting to see it play out in a court of law.
>I do not believe there is anything inherently unethical about copyright infringement in pirating movies or tv shows
Y'see, the problem is that following up a defence of "this isn't quite illegal" with a defence of "this shouldn't be illegal" tends to weaken both cases.
I'd listen to the opinions of internet-people on the subject of copyright a lot more often if they didn't always seem to boil down to "Anything that I personally think I should be allowed to get away with ought to be legal"
Also, I don't understand, what is it that you are accusing me of trying to get away with?
If you think it's unethical to pirate movies please tell me why.
Good to know. Running a search engine can be compared to murder, rape, etc...
I'm sorry, what? These extradition arrangements are completely lopsided and need to be reformed.
"People who have committed serious offences such as murder, rape, other sex crimes and fraud, have been successfully extradited to the UK and convicted." That is just crazy, comparing the allegations of copyright infringement, with murder and rape? Are we in in that society already?
So what's next? UK asking to extradite Sergey and Larry for the same allegations? Crazy.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbm=vid&q=the+sopranos
Since I am secondary linking to copyrighted content via Google, does that make the owners of this website liable to prosecution?
This kind of stuff has been going on for too long.
Also, the law understands intent. Google will take down links when requested. This guy purposefully ignored take-down requests, and was clearly purposefully organising his website to pirate copyrighted material.
Now, if he should be taken to the US is another question, but in my opinion you shouldn't lower the debate by claiming what he did is particularly similar to Google's video search.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fthepirateba...
Just to play devil's advocate here (and out of general interest), but why should he follow DMCA? Isn't that a United States copyright law? Where's the jurisdiction here?
However, in UK and some other countries, a petition would be read out in parliament and get you a response where other members of government could discuss it.
Is this just a case of a bully picking on someone who has little hope of defending himself?
Also, how is this guy a "hacker"?
A non-serious crime? C'mon, anytime you're making hundreds of thousands of pounds by doing something illegal you're into reasonably serious crime territory. You can argue that the law should be changed if you like, but until it is, people who decide to make a living by breaking it for their own personal gain are criminals and I don't have sympathy for 'em.
That he did it for the money isn't necessary for me to want to see him face charges, but it certainly gives an idea of the scale of the problem. Small scale personal-use privacy shouldn't be the subject of this kind of action, but on that kind of scale it's a different matter.
As to the question of whether he should be extradited, though... well, that's not my place to say. I think he should be treated perfectly in accordance with British law, and I don't know British extradition law but it can be assumed that the judge who will hear his case does. Who am I to try to tell a British judge how to apply British law? Stop telling judges what to do.
Would Jimmy Wales have taken up this cause if Richard O'Dwyer wasn't a put-together specimen? You know if he was a socially-awkward, not-sure-of-himself, social-grace-lacking and all around clumsy-looking hacker. If the answer to this was manifestly in the affirmative, the question wouldn't be begging to be asked.
This is a no-lose proposition for Jimmy. Whether the guy is actually extradited or worse convicted, this low hanging PR fruit is already in Jimmy's satchel.
This is not to cast a doubt on JW's intentions.
However, holding all details of the alleged crime constant, I bet he wouldn't touch this case with a 10 foot pole if the guy didn't fit the archetype that wouldn't soil JW's image.
I am not entirely convinced if JW would have come out in his support if he were the culprit (keeping every other detail of the case untouched). Yes, I am suggesting that JW threw his weight in - atleast in some measure - due the seemingly well-adjusted looks of Richard O'Dwyer.
