Blighty's Home Secretary Theresa May has approved the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer to the US on charges of copyright infringement stemming from his TVShack website. According to his mother Julia, O'Dwyer's extradition was signed off by May on Tuesday as the Prime Minister David Cameron flew into the US for talks with …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Tuesday 13th March 2012 18:24 GMT mark phoenix

The priime minister should hang his head in shame

No British citizen should be bound by foreign laws that do not carry the same level of punishment in the UK.. The action(Civil - not criminal) were committed while residing in the UK. He should be charged and punished in the UK by UK law if applicable.

What next - British citizens shipped to Thailand and given 20 years for saying something rude about the Thai monarchy while in the UK

Madness

12 1
1. Tuesday 13th March 2012 23:57 GMT Mark 65
  
  Re: The priime minister should hang his head in shame
  
  Someone start the petition on the Government's "echo chamber for those lowly scum that voted us in and we need to make out we're listening to" website and we can all sign up.
  
  I'd start it myself but fear my lack of wordsmith capability and the flagrant overuse of such terms as "scum", "wankers", "self-serving pricks" etc would likely undermine said campaign.
  
  0 0
  1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 22:46 GMT Openminded Cynic
    
    Re: The priime minister should hang his head in shame
    
    Online petitions are a waste of time. MPs have already proven that here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15283837
    
    Write to your MP: http://www.writetothem.com/ tell them why this is wrong and why you want something done about it. Tell all your family and friends to write to their MPs too. Keep writing to them. Make it clear we're not going to go away until they revoke this treaty. It's the only way we're going to get any movement on this.
    
    0 0
2. Wednesday 14th March 2012 00:00 GMT Mark 65
  
  Re: The priime minister should hang his head in shame
  
  Petition along the lines of "stop cowering to the interests of corporate America and its shills and start performing your actual role of acting in the best interests of the British public and advancement of its society" etc
  
  0 0
3. Wednesday 14th March 2012 16:10 GMT Crisp
  
  Re: The priime minister should hang his head in shame
  
  In shame? You mean from a rope surely?
  
  1 0
  1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 19:40 GMT Dick Emery
    
    Re: The priime minister should hang his head in shame
    
    Careful what you say. They are listening (reading). Tin foil hat firmly in place.
    
    0 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 18:28 GMT Anonymous Coward

Be careful not to fund extradition cases

You too can vote with your feet and STOP this disgraceful abuse of power by the USA

If you disagree how a company behaves then simply STOP purchasing their products.

I am strongly against disproportionate legal action such as this case so make your views known and stop funding this abuse. They just won't learn will they?

2 1
Tuesday 13th March 2012 18:29 GMT Anonymous Coward

Welcome To Bend Over UK

Hands up those who are really fed up with sceptic tanks (q.v. Yank) throwing their (considerable) weight around. At this rate Chinese laws are going to look quite libertarian.

5 1
Tuesday 13th March 2012 18:41 GMT Anonymous Coward

Stupid blaming game

Don't blame the American government for selling their souls to lobbyists. They are fucking stupid and corrupt and we all know that. Blame yourselves in UK for not making any changes in the government. You guys can protest, can vote and can make the changes using the Media.

If you are so unhappy that all the policies seem fucked up, move out of the country like many people do. Here in Canada the government stupidity is at the same level, but we are starting to put pressure on the government. And if it doesn't work, they will be out in the next election. If nothing changes, then you can complain.

Policy changes usually take years to reverse so start forcing the changes NOW. The french seem to know how to pressure the government quite well. We should learn from them on this topic.

3 0
1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 01:25 GMT John Brown (no body)
  
  Re: Stupid blaming game
  
  "You guys can protest, can vote and can make the changes using the Media."
  
  We tried. The previous Govt enacted the treaty. The new Govt are using it without seeing anything wrong with it. That's all three of a major parties (well, two major and the biggest of the minors). There is no other choice.
  
  1 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 19:18 GMT Anonymous Coward

Lots of freetards about then...

I notice every comment even remotely suggesting O'Dwyer is guilty is getting down-voted.

Some people need a reality check.

What O'Dwyer has done IS illegal in this country (rightly or wrongly) - the fact that nobody here could be bothered prosecuting him over it is another matter entirely.

Given the fact that after shutting one site down - he gave them the finger, I think the little **** deserves all the jail-time he'll get.

That said the treaty does need a re-write and we should tell the USA to f**k off - the way they have treated Chris Tappin is disgraceful - and he is a guy who should never have been extradited.

1 20
1. Tuesday 13th March 2012 20:17 GMT ph0b0s
  
  Re: Lots of freetards about then...
  
  No, some just have this old fashioned idea that you should be tried and convicted in the country where the alleged crime happened. Rather than having the US policing the world and taking people from around the world to stand trial there. As a precedent it is rather worrying.
  
  This has noting to do with the specific crime, but is due to the precedent setting circumstances of it, i.e there was no crime on US soil, so it is none of their business.
  
  I am sure every day, I do something that is against the law somewhere in the world. Should I be extradited to stand trial in a country where my actions are illegal.
  
  Or if I do break the law in my own country but the CPS does not want to press the case, should I then be extradited to another country, where they have more of an interest in prosecuting.
  
  Why not just out source the whole of our justice system to countries like the US, by extraditing any alleged criminal there. It will save a lot of money in these debt ridden times. Call me old fashioned, but I don't like that idea....
  
  13 1
2. Wednesday 14th March 2012 02:19 GMT Vic
  
  Re: Lots of freetards about then...
  
  > What O'Dwyer has done IS illegal in this country
  
  Really? What offence has he committed? Which Act has he contravened?
  
  "Being a dopey little shit" isn't (yet) illegal...
  
  Vic.
  
  5 0
3. Wednesday 14th March 2012 13:27 GMT TheFifth
  
  Re: Lots of freetards about then...
  
  From what I understand what he did is NOT illegal in the UK, and if it was it would be a civil matter at most, not a criminal one.
  
  There is even legal precedent set by the Oink and FileSoup trials (where prosecutions over linking to torrent files were dropped) that shows that his actions are not illegal in the UK. The CPS investigated him and didn't press charges.
  
  So our governmental prosecution service (CPS) think he has no case to answer within UK law, we have legal precedent saying he has no case to answer within UK law, and he only operated within the UK. Why exactly is he being extradited again? Oh I remember, US law is enforceable worldwide and our Government is happy to sell its people down the line.
  
  I'm sure we all do something everyday that is illegal somewhere in the world. Should we all start worrying?
  
  1 0
  1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 17:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Lots of freetards about then...
    
    It ceases to be a civil matter when it is carried out commercially, it's pretty easy to argue that if he's made something like quarter of a million dollars then it was a commercial operation.
    
    As well as this, we don't know where the advertising was being served from, it's highly likely that the company serving the advertising is from the USA, as most are, this would be a fairly good link to a crime happening on US soil.
    
    As a final point when a crime happens in multiple jurisdictions the general agreed way forward is that the jurisdiction who signals intent to prosecute first is the one who gets the extradition/puts on the trial. This is what happened with the NatWest four.
    
    0 0
4. Wednesday 14th March 2012 14:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Lots of freetards about then...
  
  I think the point is that it doesn't really matter about O'Dwyer, beyond his just being an example. It doesn't matter what he has or hasn't done, because this extradition treaty is magnitudes more serious. It has to be stopped.
  
  Really so-called 'Democracy' is a joke. You can't wait 4 or 5 years before you can stop them by voting (I mean, if voting the opposition it ever made a difference anyway!). That's about as responsible as emergency services only doing something about fires, motorway pile-ups, murder sprees, on one day a month and justifying it with the hope that 'not too many people die in the meantime!'
  
  1 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 20:01 GMT Anonymous Coward

The American Empire

America is to the modern world what Rome was to the ancient: the no. 1 power. Like any over-arching power it can do what it likes & it's little tributary nations (e.g. the UK) submit. But there is a double standard. You can bet that American soldier who slaughtered those Afghan civilians won't face Afghan justice.

5 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 20:07 GMT Anonymous Coward

'Thin end of the wedge' / 'slippery slope' case in point

So this is a case in point of legislation put in place for one thing, being used for something else completely. The current extradition treaty was set-up in the way it was, to allow the US to get hold of potential terrorists who even though not in the US, have had involvement in crimes against US interests.

Of course no-one was bothered at the time as it was stuff to stop only terrorism, right? As per usual, wrong. Like most legislation put in place to combat the bogey men terrorists or child abusers, it will mostly end up being used against people who have not involvement in these crimes. Another case in point is that the extreme porn law gets mostly used against immigrants selling pirated DVD's (report from this website), rather than against stopping more murders like the Jane Longhurst one, that promoted the legislation. Don't even get me started on the RIPA abuses.

So those of us who argue against these kinds of legislation. Which are advertised as needed to stop terrorists or child abuse. We are doing so not because we support either of those crimes, but because we know from experience that the legislation will not be used against the groups intended, but against others who do not deserve the same treatment.

Has the guy who is being extradited done something wrong, probably. Does he deserve to have legislation designed for people who want to perpetrate terrorist acts against others, of course not. And this will keep continue while people are happy to give up there rights in order to be protected from the Terrorists or Paedos, without realising they are just shooting themselves in the foot....

8 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 20:15 GMT Anthony 10

I don't understand

I never used the site so don't know exactly how it worked. Every week I use google video search to find links to videos of premier league highlights. If this kids site was a similar concept then can we extradite the board of google to the UK for trial?

1 0
1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 10:25 GMT SJRulez
  
  Re: I don't understand
  
  Google and other search engines etc have a "takedown mechanism" in place by which content owners can send them a request to have something removed from the site or de-listed from search engine results.
  
  As long as you can show reasonable compliance and action for these requests you have a "get out of jail card". Its pretty stupid really, if O'Dwyer had a button offering the ability to remove content he probably would have got away with it.
  
  The thing I find amazing with these cases it the US constantly quoting how much this site and that site made from advertising which has some serious flaws:
  
  1. The amount they make on advertising has nothing to do with copyright infringement.. the advertising is based on site views, just because someone viewed an advertisement generating income does not mean they then viewed copyrighted material.
  
  2. The figures they use are always based on gross costs they never seem to add the costs of actually running sites which in some cases can be as much as the revenue generated effectively making no profit at all.
  
  2 0
  1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 12:26 GMT chriswakey
    
    Re: I don't understand
    
    "Google and other search engines etc have a "takedown mechanism" in place by which content owners can send them a request to have something removed from the site or de-listed from search engine results."
    
    So did Megaupload.
    
    2 0
    1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 17:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: I don't understand
      
      Yes, but Megaupload also actively encouraged people to re-upload the material.
      
      0 0
2. This post has been deleted by its author
Tuesday 13th March 2012 20:51 GMT Anonymous Coward

One-Man Revolt

I travel for work and spend plenty of time in the US so I'm shafted really by any government that wants to deem me a threat to their cartoon mice... that said it's becoming clear for UK citizenry (myself included) that if the US ever comes knocking at the door for the next extradition on spurious charges your only hope is to go on the rampage.

Yes, I mean start a riot, steal a car, set fire to a school (at the weekend) or cause some other incalculable financial loss that is (a) enough to raise the ire of Daily Fail and Sun readers but (b) does not cause death or GBH and (c) ensures you get national attention and (d) a long enough term in a UK slammer that delays or frustrates the US process.

I can't say whether it would be successful but it may force a national debate and possibly set UK law enforcement against US law enforcement. But you have better survival chance in a UK prison versus the very real threat of rape and murder in a US prison. There's also the slight possibility that when you get released in the UK a change of culture has taken effect in the US that they no longer wish to pursue you.

On the other hand if the US still manages to twist the UK's arm and extradite - think about all the scores you could settle and effectively leave the country knowing your enemies would see no justice.

$$$$$$'s worth of property damage vs $'s worth of copyright infringement

6 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 21:10 GMT David 45

Outrageous

That's right. Don't go for the big guys, Ms. May. Go for the little ones who probably can't defend themselves properly. Why is he being extradited anyway? What's the matter, Theresa? Afraid of upsetting the Yanks? It's about time someone did, poking their noses into foreign governments' business and trying to rule the world.

3 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 21:45 GMT OpenIndiana

Fucking disgrace!

The US and the UK should be ashamed of their loss of perspective. See title.

0 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 21:47 GMT Anonymous Coward

Plenty more fish in the sea...

I've never used one specific site to find copyrighted material, preferring instead to use the search engine that indexes them all, Google. After all why limit yourself to one database in a sea of thousands?

0 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 21:53 GMT Anonymous Coward

"British law and only British law should apply."

You may well be right, but you're a few decades too late.

It's interesting that now this US "extraterritoriality" (?) affects the British man in the street, suddenly it's a hot topic. But actually it's nothing new. Not if you're in business, or if you have your eyes open, anyway.

It's been affecting British companies for literally decades. If you are a British company with significant US connections, and you want to stay in business, you have to obey US export controls even when the UK (or more recently the EU) has no equivalent restrictions. End of. Same probably applies elsewhere, but it's the UK I know about.

See also "secondary boycotts".

1 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 22:58 GMT Anonymous Noel Coward

Theresa May, you are a disgrace to this country.

Please resign with immediate effect.

6 0
Tuesday 13th March 2012 23:00 GMT dgw

Has everyone gone mad?

The issue here (and with Christopher Tappin) is not *extradition* but *jurisdiction*. If what O'Dwyer did in the UK was illegal in the UK, then he is subject to UK law. He can not be subject to US law for something he did in the UK. I do not believe an American would ever be extradited for something he did in America.

If I, as a UK citizen, have never been to the USA I should not have to concern myself with what is or is not legal in the USA. Or China, or Venezuela, or Djibouti. If I travel to another country and commit a crime there, then it is my lookout. But I can't become subject to foreign law just by, for example, trading with someone in that country. That would be absurd.

E.g. Tappin is accused of the crime of exporting batteries from the USA. But he did not *export* them he *imported* them. Whoever sold them from the USA was breaking US law. But Tappin wasn't.

It is illegal to import Bibles into Saudi Arabia. So if I sell Bibles to someone in Saudi can I be extradited?

The test that the crime has to be illegal in both countries is flawed - because we do not know if what O'Dwyer or Tappin did was illegal in the UK unless there is a trial in the UK. It makes sense to apply that test only after jurisdiction has been established - not to transfer jurisdiction.

4 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 01:34 GMT I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

Washing his hands?

Election coming up and wants to play a white man?

He'll have to wash more than his hands. He's done nothing else but wash his hands since they elected the tosser.

0 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 10:49 GMT Melanie Winiger

I have serious doubts

I have serious doubts about the Yanks calculation for the amount of revenue that site brought in.

I don't have any doubts that he will be "forced" to plead guilty and enter a plea bargain e.g. 6 years in prison isof. 120.

Yeah, he did something wrong, we all did when we were young, but he never killed or injured anyone and yet he'll be receiving more time in Prison than UK rioters got.

If I was Richard O'Dwyer, I would be seeing Political Asylum in the United Arab Emirates Embassy right now!!

0 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 10:49 GMT squilookle

He shouldn't have set the mirror up after the site was taken down for the first time, but this is very, very scary, disproportionate and some big changes need to be made here.

So, who do we vote for at the next election then (with reference to this issue only - I could give long lists why I wouldn't vote for any of them but that's not relevant to this thread)? Labour, I believe, paved the way for this, so not them. The Tories are using the legislation, so not them. And the Lib Dems... (disclaimer: the party I always voted for up until this time)... Absolutely not.

...we're pretty fucked then, and this is only going to get worse.

1 0
1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 10:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Who to vote for?
  
  You hit the nail on the head all our politicians are subservient to the mighty USA.
  
  I don't know about you but I'm getting pretty sick of it.
  
  Labour brought in the laws and the coalition uses them, says it all really.
  
  Guy Fawkes the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions...
  
  3 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 12:46 GMT Purlieu

Dear Theresa May

Why are you rushing to extradite O'Dwyer while fannying about with Abu Qatada ?

0 0
1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 17:17 GMT Rob 21
  
  Re: Dear Theresa May
  
  Because the Jordanians will ... 'do things' to him. Whereas the US lets fellow inmates 'do things' to you in choky, so that's alright.
  
  1 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 13:14 GMT Anonymous Coward

Feel free to choose which country's side you're on in the next war ...

... because there is no wrong in betraying a country that practices extradition.

1 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 13:22 GMT Tony Paulazzo

>Blame yourselves in UK for not making any changes in the government.<

Er, we did, the last election was called a hung parliament, where no party got a major vote, so it was down to the most liberal party (the liberal democrats) choosing to share power with one of the other parties -

1) Labour (the left), seduced by Hollywood moguls into forcing the anti piracy DEA thru, signing this extradition agreement, whilst simultaneously being for 'spying on our citizens' and spunking cash trying to buy their way out of a global economy dive... or the

2) Conservatives (the right), which is who they chose and immediately forgot they were the Liberal party and agreed to everything David Cameron wanted (pretty much), so - shutting down community centres, libraries etc and raising the cost of University fees, not getting rid of the DEA or camera's and proving that -

3) it doesn't matter who you fucking vote for (I used to vote Liberal Democrat - splitters!).

Mumble, whinge, moan, damn kids - GET OFF MY LAWN!

4 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 13:32 GMT Anonymous Coward

$230,000 seems to be a number that the US justice department pulled out of the air. They don't have to show any evidence remember.

0 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 14:01 GMT Wild Bill

To everyone who has commented so far...

...please copy your comment to your clipboard and then visit the following link: http://www.writetothem.com/

0 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 14:11 GMT The Axe

Extridation and EAW

So America can extradite a British citizen without showing much evidence to back up their case. So can the whole of Europe with the EAW. Witness the recent case of Graham Mitchell who has been re-arrested under the EAW for a crime he was found NOT guilty of 20 years ago - look it up his name on Google.

How long before the whole world can extradite British citizens and the UK legal system and the politicians allow it to happen without doing anything to stop it.

1 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 14:12 GMT John A Blackley

Perhaps

A quick read of the actual extradition treaty might vent some of the hot air.

The United States is required to show 'reasonable suspicion' that a criminal act has occured in an environment in which the US has jurisdiction (in this case, where US companies claim to have been damaged). The United Kingdom has to show 'probable cause' to believe that a crime has been committed, etc. This change to the extradition treaty was made, in part, to redress an imbalance which, until 2003, had worked in the UK's favour.

Sir Scott Baker, in 2011, was tasked with chairing an independent inquiry into the treaty and concluded that, in terms of evidentiary requirement, there is no material difference between the US' 'reasonable suspicion' and the UK's 'probable cause'.

Is the US' claim of jurisdiction open to argument? Sure. Claims of Britain 'giving in' to the US over the treaty terms, however, are harder to support.

1 2
1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 16:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Perhaps
  
  Now there is actually a world of difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" in law and you should know the difference before making a claim that its the same.
  
  Reasonable suspicion is weaker than probable cause and here is an example...
  
  Reasonable Suspicion - A police officer sees someone who looks out of place enough to be suspicious of their motives and think a crime may or may not have been committed.
  
  For example would be someone is stumbling around and not walking right when exiting a car, leading to the suspicion he may be drunk (but he might be injured or some other cause etc)
  
  Next the police officer approaches the suspect and smells alcohol on his breath. Now the officer has probable cause that a crime has been committed, and can perform a breath test or something on the subject and arrest him for drink driving.
  
  Basically probable cause needs more evidence to back it up than simply "someone appears to be acting suspiciously"
  
  1 0
  1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 21:09 GMT John A Blackley
    
    Re: Perhaps
    
    Please re-read the post. I make no such claim. Sir Scott Baker made the claim. Go talk to him.
    
    0 0
2. Wednesday 14th March 2012 17:02 GMT dgw
  
  Re: Perhaps
  
  Has any US citizen ever been extradited to another country for an act committed on US soil?
  
  I don't know, but I very much doubt it. Please give an example if you know of one.
  
  0 0
  1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 17:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Perhaps
    
    @DGW I heard on Radio4 news (IIRC) that more have been extradited to the UK than to the US under this "treaty" and that the US haven't refused one request, whereas the UK has.
    
    1 0
    1. Wednesday 14th March 2012 17:31 GMT dgw
      
      Re: Perhaps
      
      "I heard on Radio4 news (IIRC) that more have been extradited to the UK than to the US..."
      
      Yes, but had those Americans committed crimes in the UK, or in the US? I do not believe the US would extradite one if its citizens for a crime committed while that person was physically in the USA. American law would apply. Happy to be proved wrong if anyone can give an example.
      
      0 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 14:20 GMT Anonymous Coward

FYI

I just emailed the PM's office. The sort of thing that probably makes no difference alone...

Subject:

The US-UK Extradition Treaty

"Said treaty is a greater crime than anything it supposedly helps fight, including terrorism. Such is treachery."

3 0
Wednesday 14th March 2012 22:47 GMT Dennis Wilson

Payback

When he set up his operation he knew it was involved in passing over bootleged downloads and what the fallout would be if he was caught.

As the saying goes... If you can't do the time then don't do the crime.

0 2
Thursday 15th March 2012 00:50 GMT Anonymous Noel Coward

At what point can we expect the extradition of the creators of the Internet [ARPANET] to the UK?

Since, let's face it, the Internet could be used for stuff which could be useful for a terrorist. (Next target, etc.)

Or to download child pornography.

Both of which are illegal here in the UK.

1 0