Extradition for copywrite infringement

Uther · 13 Jan 2012 at 14:23

With a case currently going through the courts about a British man facing extradition to the US for the above 'offense' I was just wondering how many Americans are currently fighting off extradition to the UK, or is this a one way street for our American friends?

Engram · 13 Jan 2012 at 14:25

It's a one-way street. But it's worth noting that the current extradition, although indefensible, is for criminal copyright infringement.

Uther · 13 Jan 2012 at 14:29

D'oh I spelt 'copyright' wrong

platypus · 13 Jan 2012 at 14:31

We should extradite* you for your woeful thread title

.

*I realise the wrongful use of this, don't point it out!

Uther · 13 Jan 2012 at 14:33

platypus said:
We should extradite* you for your woeful thread title .

I know, I know, hair shirt time!

Cosimo · 13 Jan 2012 at 14:34

Uther said:
D'oh I spelt 'copyright' wrong

One way ticket to the US is waiting for you.

dfarrall · 13 Jan 2012 at 14:59

Uther said:
D'oh I spelt 'copyright' wrong

It's also offence not offense.

Burnsy2023 · 13 Jan 2012 at 16:41

Our extradition treaty with the US needs to be scrapped and rethought. It's woefully one sided and potentially allows British citizens to be extradited for any bat **** crazy laws the Americans decide to pass through into law.

Dr House · 13 Jan 2012 at 16:46

Sounds like a good way to get a long term US visa

RomanNose · 13 Jan 2012 at 16:48

Absolutely mind blowingly stupid that we have this treaty. It needs to go QUICKLY. It is very debatable whether he even broke the law, but being tried in another country for a crime you did in your bedroom. What the **** is this ****?

Killerkebab · 13 Jan 2012 at 16:55

platypus said:
We should extradite* you for your woeful thread title .

*I realise the wrongful use of this, don't point it out!

It is woeful, since you clearly meant to say 'extradight'!

Castiel · 13 Jan 2012 at 17:08

Engram said:
It's a one-way street. But it's worth noting that the current extradition, although indefensible, is for criminal copyright infringement.

Yet no charges have been bought against him by the British Authorities.....

Since when is a British Subject and Citizen subject to US laws whilst living and remaining in Britain? If he had physically committed a crime in the US then he would be subject to their laws...however he did not, any crime that he may of committed was committed in the UK....so it is a matter for UK Law....simple as that.

this is a case for UK Courts, not for US courts to try.

This decision will most likely get overturned on appeal....and the Govt should be repealing this ridiculous and one sided treaty as a matter of urgency.

Edrof · 13 Jan 2012 at 17:10

Does anyone have a link to the case for us lazewads?

Castiel · 13 Jan 2012 at 17:13

Edrof said:
Does anyone have a link to the case for us lazewads?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

A Sheffield student can be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement allegations, a judge has ruled.

Richard O'Dwyer, 23, set up the TVShack website which US authorities say hosts links to pirated copyrighted films and television programmes.

The Sheffield Hallam University student lost his case in a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

If found guilty in a US court he could face up to five years in jail.

Mr O'Dwyer's lawyer, Ben Cooper, indicated during the hearing that he would appeal against the ruling.

Mr Cooper said the website did not store copyright material itself and merely directed users to other sites, making it similar to Google.

He also argued that his client, who would be the first British citizen to be extradited for such an offence, was being used as a "guinea pig" for copyright law in the US.

But District Judge Quentin Purdy ruled the extradition could go ahead.

Mr O'Dwyer's mother, Julia O'Dwyer, from Chesterfield, has described the moves by US authorities as "beyond belief" and described Britain's extradition treaty with the United States as "rotten".

Speaking before the hearing, Mr O'Dwyer said he was "surprised" when police officers from the UK and America seized equipment at his home in South Yorkshire in November 2010.

However, no criminal charges followed from the UK authorities.

The case was brought by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned "over $230,000 in advertising revenue" before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name.

orderoftheflame · 13 Jan 2012 at 17:16

Castiel said:
Yet no charges have been bought against him by the British Authorities.....

Since when is a British Subject and Citizen subject to US laws whilst living and remaining in Britain? If he had physically committed a crime in the US then he would be subject to their laws...however he did not, any crime that he may of committed was committed in the UK....so it is a matter for UK Law....simple as that.

this is a case for UK Courts, not for US courts to try.

This decision will most likely get overturned on appeal....and the Govt should be repealing this ridiculous and one sided treaty as a matter of urgency.

If I hired someone to kill someone else in the USA should I be immune from US because I wasn't there? Bad example maybe..

If the reports are reliable he pocketed the big bucks because of this websites advertising. Why should he get off free because our laws are terrible surrounding this?

RDM · 13 Jan 2012 at 17:17

Castiel said:
Yet no charges have been bought against him by the British Authorities.....

Since when is a British Subject and Citizen subject to US laws whilst living and remaining in Britain? If he had physically committed a crime in the US then he would be subject to their laws...however he did not, any crime that he may of committed was committed in the UK....so it is a matter for UK Law....simple as that.

I don't think it is that simple anymore. Our legal system is woefully inadequate when it comes to dealing with the digital world. Much like the McKinnon case the damage was done from the UK but to the US.

Pate · 13 Jan 2012 at 17:19

It was revenue, it dosen't say how much was profit. There could have been major costs in running such a site.

RomanNose · 13 Jan 2012 at 17:21

RDM said:
I don't think it is that simple anymore. Our legal system is woefully inadequate when it comes to dealing with the digital world. Much like the McKinnon case the damage was done from the UK but to the US.

But this is not as simple as that. This is damage done to UK companies as well US companies. Personally I think that the US should just present evidence and he is tried in a UK court. If he was not breaking UK law then fine,it's up to the government to change it if they want to.

:(Rhodri:) · 13 Jan 2012 at 17:24

orderoftheflame said:
If I hired someone to kill someone else in the USA should I be immune from US because I wasn't there? Bad example maybe..

If the reports are reliable he pocketed the big bucks because of this websites advertising. Why should he get off free because our laws are terrible surrounding this?

And yet if there was an American doing this to the UK they wouldn't be extradited, it makes no sense & is very unfair for this to be a one-way street.

RDM · 13 Jan 2012 at 17:27

RomanNose said:
But this is not as simple as that.

I am not the one saying that it is simple. I have alluded to the fact that digital crime, in it's nature, is harder to define by geographical boundaries.

RomanNose said:
This is damage done to UK companies as well US companies. Personally I think that the US should just present evidence and he is tried in a UK court.

Surely it would be up to the UK companies to bring a case against him. The US authorities have decided that they whish to bring a case against him, not US companies as far as I can discern.

RomanNose said:
If he was not breaking UK law then fine,it's up to the government to change it if they want to.

I am pretty sure that if what he was doing was not illegal in the UK then he would not be able to be extradited.