TVShack's Richard O'Dwyer sent home with £20,000 fine Richard O'Dwyer, the Briton who ran one of the world's most popular download links websites, must cough up £20,000 after avoiding extradition in a bargain with US authorities. The GP's son will pay the sum under a "deferred prosecution agreement". He voluntarily flew out to New York from Blighty for his court hearing yesterday …
Was that he complied with the relevant legal take-down orders. That aspect of the case seems to have disappeared from the news. Either way, to stick his head into the jaws of the tiger and come out with a £20000 fine, he's got off lightly.
I'd hazard that starting up an ad paid linking service at the moment might be a bad idea (unless you''re Google).
O'Dwyer is a bad example, but even so, he should not be liable for extradition:
"For the UK to agree to extradition, a person must be accused of "an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom punishable with imprisonment for a term of 12 months or a greater punishment”."
So, the arrangement at present is that to be extradited, someone must have committed a crime in the UK? So why can't they be tried and punished (if convicted) in the UK? If foreign governments have evidence then that can be presented and tested through cross-examination in a British court.
The only real use for an extradition treaty should be for a foreign national to be extradited back to another country where they are wanted for an offence committed IN THAT FOREIGN COUNTRY which would also have been an offence if it had been committed in this country. Anything else is immoral and unjust. If the law was written that way then the guilty would be tried and the unjustly accused would be safe.
O'Dwyer was not a pirate. What he's accused of is running a search engine for pirates. That's a subtle but meaningful difference.
It boggles the mind really. You and various people in the industry are ready to boil this kid in oil when what he's really doing is giving you a map and a flashlight. That's right: a map and a flashlight. He's cataloged all of the infringers for you.
Everyone involved should have just let him be and allow him to be an unwitting pawn for law enforcement.
So if he complied with takedown requests, why is linking tv shows and earning ad revenue a crime?, youtube does exactly the same thing (worse actually, they actually host the content as well).
I liked tvshack, there were a lot of obscure documentaries on it.
Most films linked were low quality cams though, so I dont think the movie studios lost much revenue due to people watching em apart from the obvious "christ, this is a shit film, glad i didnt buy it" syndrome.
I still fail to see why he had to capitulate and do all this. Makes the old blood boil. What the have the Yanks got to do with this? It's now worrying that a precedent has been set.
Seen elsewhere: "He agreed to stay in touch with a correctional officer over a six-month period as part of the contract."
Oh my - what a naughty boy he's been. The Yanks should have been told to push off in no uncertain manner when they wanted extradition. Nowt to do with them in any way, shape or form, as he hasn't committed any crime on their soil and USA laws don't (or shouldn't) apply to UK citizens. Does this now mean that USA jurisdiction (or any other country's) now extends to every UK internet user? Am I likely to be carted off to foreign parts to have my hands chopped off for criticising some far eastern royal family, even though I am not a citizen of their country. have never been there and never had the slightest connection with anybody in that country? The mind boggles.
The earnings tells you it actually pays up to do this, even if you get cough in the end (or perhaps not).
I know that by doing legal blog on volcanoes and earthquakes (in Iceland, Canary Islands and Falkland Islands) I am not even close to getting 1/4 of this income from those blog sites that I that cover geological events.
I am poor and it is not improving any time soon.
Can someone explain to me why the Americans, not exactly known for tolerance of anyone who might conceivably reduce the income of the MAFIAA cartels by $1-50 per year, have effectively back-pedalled mightily and let him off with a metaphorical slapped wrist? On past performance one would have expected at least 300 years in jail and his first-born impaled on a stake. I am genuinely mystified. Can anyone enlighten me?
I was about to cynically add: "Is he safely back in the UK yet?", but then I realised, with infinite sadness for the country I grew up in, that he clearly wasn't 'safely in the UK' to begin with.
By this very outcome, shouldn't every search engine CEO be "voluntarily" hauled to the good ol US of A and be fined as well?
No?
They do not make money from traffic and link to "illegal" torrents?
OH I get it it - they are too big to go after and have lawyers who bite back.
Another farce for the UK. Before any extradition takes place or is granted, the person(s) should be found guilty in a court over here and only then should an extradition order be granted.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
