Crime "Pirating” UK Student to be Extradited to the US.

Richard O’Dwyer, the UK-based ex-administrator of the video linking website TVShack will be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement charges. Despite public outrage Home Secretary Theresa May approved the extradition order today. The 23-year-old student has never visited United States, but now faces several years in a US prison.

Last year Richard O’Dwyer was arrested by police for operating TVShack, a website that carried links to copyrighted TV-shows. Following his detention in the UK’s largest prison, the site owner fought a looming extradition to the US, but without success. After a UK judge gave the green light to extradite the student two months ago, Home Secretary Theresa May officially approved the request from US authorities today.


=======
This is outrageous. We have bigger crimes, other people that should be being put in jail IN THE US. Who? Many corrupt politicians and CEOs to start. This is just... unbelievable.

So, if somebody in the UK does anything on the internet that is against the law in any country you can get extradited and charged?

Ninja_sheep said:

So, if somebody in the UK does anything on the internet that is against the law in any country you can get extradited and charged?

Click to expand...

Obviously.... that's sick..

Anyway, on topic-ish-funny-fact-please-confirm:

When downloading torrents (P2P (not that I've ever done such a thing!)) If you disable uploading permanently and only download the files, aka you are leeching and not seeding. You are not breaking the law? As you are downloading music for example but not sharing it. It's just a theory, but I always thought the companies refer to downloading as P2P and seeding being the illegal part.

We're not sharing piracy methods here, just discussing! xO

And for the pirates sake, I know leeching without seeding is not very.... nice... (gimme the proper word please!)

so his website had no copyrighted content, but links to it, and he was arrested for that - google has links to copyrighted content as does almost half the internet.. wtf?

not only that, as the article points out, the extradition to the U.S. is to be charged for crimes IN THE U.S. - not on the internet, the U.S. isn't the world police and shouldn't act like it, since the U.S. always looks after its own interest first and is a horrible "world police"

Oooh that sounds kinda harsh

I thought SOPA and PIPA didn't pass...

BANANAMAN said:

I thought SOPA and PIPA didn't pass...

Click to expand...

they didn't but the U.S. is pretending they did and going on as if they did because who would sue the FBI for doing something illegal?

The law usually goes against big seeders. Catching a downloader won't do much, but catching the person that seeds most will. At least in their point of view. They think they will stop anything.
Someone downloading something illegal is breaking the law just as the one that made it available. It's like buying stolen goods, both get thrown in jail.

The US never needed SOPA to do these things. I think they just wanted to pass it to be excused, like the Patriot Act.

esb said:

The law usually goes against big seeders.

Click to expand...

but the person being extracted didn't seed at all - he had links to other sites, nor did he download anything illegal (atleast not from this article or the reason for extraction)

That's the same thing. You're allowing illegal acts to happen.
For example, if you know the ins and outs of a child trafficking network, and all you do is arrange meetings for transactions between kids and money to happen, but take no part in it, wouldn't you be just as guilty?

Now I know piracy and child trafficking aren't to be compared, but what I'm comparing is Illegal Act A with Illegal Act B. In the government's eyes, it's illegal and merits such punishment. What can we do? Not much.

esb said:

That's the same thing. You're allowing illegal acts to happen.
For example, if you know the ins and outs of a child trafficking network, and all you do is arrange meetings for transactions between kids and money to happen, but take no part in it, wouldn't you be just as guilty?

Click to expand...

allowing illegal acts to happen? - go ahead and shut down the internet then, since half the sites probably link to copyrighted content, or what about a link to a site that has a link to a site that has a link to a site that has copyrighted content? where do you draw the line?

it's not illegal to have a link to copyrighted content, that was the sopa/pipa act, which DID NOT PASS - therefore it is legal

also, if your going to shut down websites that help aid in doing illegal things, but aren't illegal by themselves, why doesn't the government shut down car manufacturers, since most child trafficking is aided by cars? and guns, there are a ton of illegal crimes that have to do with guns, it's not the guns/website that is illegal, it is what you do with it that is

not only that, that would be one thing, if it was in the U.S. - but to extradite a person from the UK for potentially violating US law? since when do the US laws apply to the UK?

if the child trafficking occurs in China, will the U.S. go and arrest Chinese citizens who are guilty of such crimes?

I never said I agreed to this. Just tried to explain what they were doing and their 'reasons'.

But my most important point that I'm trying to bring up is, the government does NOT needs laws to pass in order to do what it pleases.

I know the law in my country says that if you link to a site which promotes illegal content in any form this isnt illegal as long as you dont know that the site does it.
If you link to a site which obviously tries to circulate child porn then you go to jail because it was obviously illegal.
If you link to a site and then you write a comment beneath the link which says "Guys check this site out! Lots of music free to download here!!!" then you obviously know its illegal and you go to jail nevertheless.

If you link to a site which does, besides other legal stuff, some illegal stuff which you do not seem to know about you will not go to jail but you will have to remove the link once you find out that the site does illegal stuff, if you dont, then you go to jail also.

Thats as much as i know about this.

Accname said:

"Guys check this site out! Lots of music free to download here!!!" then you obviously know its illegal and you go to jail nevertheless.

If you link to a site which does, besides other legal stuff, some illegal stuff which you do not seem to know about you will not go to jail but you will have to remove the link once you find out that the site does illegal stuff

Click to expand...

none of the sites would be purely for illegal content, if there is a site dedicated to music, chances are there will be free publicly available music there as well, same for movie sites, and everything else

esb said:

But my most important point that I'm trying to bring up is, the government does NOT needs laws to pass in order to do what it pleases.

Click to expand...

which is really a rather big problem, the government shouldn't be disregarding it's own laws like that, no-one should be above the law (including the police/government officials)

So, if somebody in the UK does anything on the internet that is against the law in any country you can get extradited and charged?

Click to expand...

Not quite. It's only if it's illegal in the US, as we have a horribly one sided extradition treaty with them; there was another case where a guy hacked into the FBI looking for evidence of aliens; obviously, that is illegal, but the person in question has asperger's syndrome, and while it's generally agreed he should stand trial in the UK for the sake of his health, our government is turning a blind eye to the matter. I also recall a recent case where a UK man was extradited to the US for selling batteries to Iran, on account of the supposed fact that they were usable as weapon parts...

The main problem I have with it is that it's just so one sided... the US demands, and we give them what they want... in fact, the only time I remember us not extraditing someone was somebody who actually deserved it, because he was a known terrorist. So, in short, fuck *both* governments.

Ahaha, there's one threat you are all dismissing... Mexicans.
With this as common knowledge we can safely assume that all mexicans trying to cross the boarder will simply start mass torrenting in the hope of being extradited to the US.

I do have a point to make here though, they wouldnt try to do this to someone from a shitty country. Sorry to all from Mexico.

giv_me_rep said:

Ahaha, there's one threat you are all dismissing... Mexicans.
With this as common knowledge we can safely assume that all mexicans trying to cross the boarder will simply start mass torrenting in the hope of being extradited to the US.

I do have a point to make here though, they wouldnt try to do this to someone from a shitty country. Sorry to all from Mexico.

Click to expand...

Oh, man, that's FUNNY LOL! ROFLMHO!

>>>>>

This is total rubbish. Poor guy...

giv_me_rep said:

all mexicans trying to cross the boarder will simply start mass torrenting in the hope of being extradited to the US.

Click to expand...

at best, they would spend a few years in U.S. prison before being sent back to Mexico.. at worst nothing will happen? (or am I mixing up where the worst and best belong?)

I am so f@@king tired of this world.

iPeez said:

I am so f@@king tired of this world.

Click to expand...

Create a New World!