Richard O'Dwyer Has To Pay ?20,000 To Close Out Lawsuit Against Him
from the and-that's-that dept
Last week, we wrote about how student Richard O’Dwyer cut a deal with the feds to end the extradition attempt and criminal charges against him for running TVShack.net, a links site similar to other UK sites that had already been deemed legal. We noted that as a part of this “deferred prosecution,” O’Dwyer would need to come to the US and pay a “small sum.” He’s now done so, and the court has ordered that he pay £20,000. That’s still a decent chunk of change, but not a crippling amount like what we’ve seen in cases like the Jammie Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum cases (which were very different types of cases, but arguably over much lesser charges — civil vs. criminal for one thing…). It still seems ridiculous that he needed to pay anything at all, but getting the case over, for an amount that he can “afford,” while avoiding jail seems like a pretty big victory for him — especially given the language that the feds (and Hollywood) have used to describe O’Dwyer. In the meantime, guess how much of the £20,000 will be going to the artists O’Dwyer supposedly was harming?
Filed Under: copyright, lawsuit, richard o'dwyer
Companies: tvshack
Comments on “Richard O'Dwyer Has To Pay ?20,000 To Close Out Lawsuit Against Him”
Only 20 K?
I think the content cartels are going soft.
Re: Only 20 K?
I think the IP and media cartels should be put in jail. Abolish IP and abolish govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies. Those who passed these anti-competitive laws and those who lobbied for them should be jailed for no less than ten years and they should be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars per person, in fact, they should have all their stolen assets taken and they should be forced to start from scratch after getting out of jail.
I would say none of the money will be going to the artists. Every penny will no doubt be used by those who brought the case against him to cover the expense of trying to get O’Dwyer extradited etc.
I expect that if the MPAA is feeling “generous” a whole 50 cents might make it to the artists.
Re: Re:
no, a single cent to be distributed amongst 50,000 artists.
Re: Re:
No, ‘generous’ for the MPAA would be if they didn’t add all the legal fees incurred during this whole fiasco to what the artists/producers they were ‘protecting’ owe them.
I plan to donate ?10 a month to Richard O’Dwyer.
We have a winner
It still seems ridiculous that he needed to pay anything at all, but getting the case over, for an amount that he can “afford,” while avoiding jail seems like a pretty big victory for him
Gods spare me from any such ‘victories.’
Re: We have a winner
No problem; all you have to do is not purposely only aggregate links to infringing content and then advertise it.
Simple stuff. Unless of course you’re a complete fucking moron.
Re: Re: We have a winner
yes, because posting links is illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni7Ybe3SXZM
I’m posting a link to copyrighted content! I must be doing something illegal!
Re: Re: Re: We have a winner
I said: “purposely only aggregate links to infringing content”
You apparently have reading comprehension issues.
Is that why you’ve been stuck in a job for 10 years that requires a nametag?
Re: Re: Re:2 We have a winner
Yes, because having a job is something to be ashamed of. *Rolls eyes*
oh, and I don’t have to wear name tags either.
Try again, buskahosa.
Re: Re: Re:2 We have a winner
“purposely only aggregate links to infringing content”
What does that even mean.
Yes his site aggregated links, so of course purposely. Are you trying to indicate there is something wrong with linking?
If so you should be going after the googles, bings, and yahoos of this world instead of the small fry.
Re: Re: We have a winner
All you have to do is stop eating food. Simple stuff, unless you’re a moron.
A ‘simple’ law doesn’t make it a good law. and IP laws are by no means ‘simple’ but either way, they are all bad laws.
All IP laws should be abolished and I should not have to be forced to follow bad laws passed by self interested politicians and corporate interests against my interest just because our politicians have been bought through campaign contributions and revolving door favors. IP laws should be abolished. Simple. Even a moron can get it.
Abolish IP!!!! Get rid of it, I hate these laws, they work against my interests as a member of the public and against the public interest and no one is entitled to a govt. established monopoly privilege.
IP laws should not be about the benefit and will of IP holders, they should only be about the sole benefit and will of the public and as a member of the public my will is that these laws get abolished. I don’t care that you’re a dumb meritless lawyer whose job depends on being a parasite off of these laws and that the abolition of these laws cause you to lose your job and force you to either be jobless or find a real job where you must actually work and contribute. You are a deadweight loss to society, what you do is no better than someone who breaks windows to keep his job and you should be forced to get a real job and you should be jailed for all the time you stole from the system to maintain your income. Get lost you stupid thug lawyer and get a real job and stop stealing from the public. No one needs you and you don’t care about the artists or the public, you only care about yourself and to come here and lie about it and claim that you want laws that benefit you passed because they benefit artists is an insult to the artists that you are hindering through the removal of all the alternative content distribution services that they could otherwise benefit from if it weren’t for all the IP and other anti-competitive laws getting in the way. You don’t care about the artists, only yourself, and your own self interests are the only reason you want these bad laws.
Bad IP laws are the reason many restaurants and other venues refuse to host independent performers because they are afraid of getting sued by the IP collection cartels if they don’t pay steep royalties under the pretext that someone might infringe. Even mom and pop bakeries are afraid of allowing children to draw custom pictures on their birthday cakes because they have received infringement lawsuit threats from the big giant IP cartels. GET RID OF THESE STUPID LAWS!!!! You dumb lawyer shill, get a real job.
How much will Techdirt be donating?
Re: Re:
As much as the coward who asks the question and ignores reporting of the story.
Im more interested to find out if a deal was made, and what that deal was.
But for now ill take this as a win, with reservation……..happy for richard, apart for the settlement, at least they have no basis to interfere with his life, the great deceptors
Re: Re:
He’s not allowed to start any more linking sites and has to pay the ‘fine’.
POINT
Why cant they take him to court in the land he is in??
Why cant they enforce the law of the land he is in??
I didnt think that LAW in 1 country was enforceable in other countries that didnt have the SAME, laws.. Other wise we could run rampant thru the middle east for Women’s rights..
WHY is this a government concern?? this is a business vs Person concern..
Re: POINT
Why take someone to court in a civil matter in europe if you can potentially get more than 100 times as much money from trying to get him extradited to USA and take the case there?
USA is the only place in the world with as high damages. Most other places the fines dwarf the damages, which makes for a strong incentive for content industries and copyright trolls to incorporate in USA and “cooperate” on getting people extradited so you can sue them there.
Re: Re: POINT
Damages is why americas favourite pasttime is seen as suing by the rest of the world. By having high damages and lawyers only getting paid if they win it is fantastically lucrative to go to court with any twist involving damages.
The rest of the world has high fines and is therefore punishing the looser of the case just as hard (in case of prosecution loosing it is far worse for them), but removes a lot of the incentive from sueing aggressively.
Re: Re: Re: POINT
Ok, supposedly the extradition was on the basis that he was ‘making available’ the links to US customers and thereby qualified to face US justice.
Sooo, what would your reaction be if Iran or Libya or basically any Muslim country sought extradition of americans for offences such as playing rock music or beeing nude in public ? (the internets is pretty damn public).
You’d be outraged right ? because it’s legal in the US (well, not in public, but on the internets after you click an affirmation/consent popup).
So. that’s basically this case. a similar site to TvShack was deemed legal according to UK law, but America wanted him extradited for breaking THEIR law.
Re: Re: Re:2 POINT
You’re an idiot. It has not been legislated as legal in the UK.
And the fact that you had to use zealot countries in your pathetic attempt at making some kind of point, instead of, say, one in the EU, says everything.
Re: Re: Re:3 POINT
The CPS obviously thought there was nothing illegal going on as they originally decided NOT to prosecute.
Linking to things can’t be seen as illegal as it would destroy the internet.
Re: Re: Re:3 POINT
There was actually a point to picking those countries.
(and i got the desired reaction from you)
When it comes to copyright, can you guess wich country in the world is the ‘zealot’ country as you put it?
A country that by the rest of the worlds standards on the subject is batshit crazy in all things copyright.
Re: Re: Re:4 POINT
This is actually the problem in anonymous and un-editable comments: You never know who is writing and when a comment is actually a further collaboration on the post before.
I wrote the RE and RE RE, while someone else wrote the RE RE RE RE.
If you read the RE and RE RE together I think you will see that the RE RE is more of a back hand compliment than anything else.
As for RE RE RE RE, he uses ad hom to start his post. That is a classic sign of empty drums: Your argument was specious and he knows it. However, he also knows that the arguments against what you meant was extremely thin. To start with an ad hom, he is trying to keep the discussion from moving to the point you were making.
If you make those kinds of analysis on every comment, you will end up never using ad hom since it is always a fallacy and often a sign of a lack of arguments or lack of depth in arguments.
Re: Re: Re:3 POINT
Zealot countries?
Like America you mean? Fanatical, Partisan, and highly religious perhaps?
or were you talking about the Judean sect in 100BCE that opposed Roman rule?
I think you really need to research the meaning of zealot. Then look up equity, ethics, and parochialism, with maybe a dash of Reciprocity thrown in
Re: Re: Re:3 POINT
It has not been legislated as legal in the UK.
What a carefully worded statement.
First, the courts in the UK have ruled in multiple instances other sites doing the exact same thing were legal.
Second, in a free country, laws usually indicate things that are illegal, and if there is no law against doing something, it is considered legal. If you can point to the specific UK law that states that posting links on the internet is illegal, I’ll concede the point.
NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf
And you pirates think he’s terribly harmed, when actually he got enough money from the infringing to set him up for life!
You are some disgusting grifters.
Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
After hearing that the prime minister of New Zealand gave away $150,000,000 of public money to Warner Brothers in exchange for a toy sword so that they can be freed up to earn $3,000,000,000 from The Hobbit I think you’ll agree that we shouldn’t castigate Richard O’Dwyer – relative to that little bit of trickery he ranks somewhere between Mother Teresa of Calcutta and the Archangel Gabriel.
Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
You actually had a factual, intelligent post, complete with link to the source. Yes, this 23 year old made a lot of money with his little link site, and you are right to call people out for focusing on the negative side.
That would have been enough, but you just had to include those last two sentences with the lame attempt to insult. It’s really shameful. I was actually shocked to find myself in agreement with you for once.
Re: Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
He didn’t make a lot of money. The US authorities accuse him of making that money, the figure was basically pulled out of their arse.
Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
If you think $125000 is enough to set anyone up for life you’re an idiot.
Re: Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
We already knew he was an idiot. Just read his posts.
Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
“And you pirates think he’s terribly harmed, when actually he got enough money from the infringing to set him up for life!”
After a quick read, I only saw accusation of monies earned by the US.
Of course, US prosecutors NEVER make mistakes.
Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
You are some disgusting grifters.
So why the freakin hell are you still here then? or are you trying to ‘convert’ us or something?
Here’s a clue.. to convert someone to your way of thinking you need to actually INTERACT with them. this means replying to comments and actually debating, discussing, and all the other human ways of conversing.
Oh I forgot.. your not Human just an ignoranus
Re: Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
Initially, I thought you misspelled “ignoramus”.
Then I saw who the comment was directed at.
Then I decided all was fine.
Re: Re: Re: NETTED ONLY an illegal L125,000 then!
😉
For your future reference it comes directly
Make this comment the first word
Make this comment the last word
Mike Masnick simply hates it when copyright law is enforced.
Re: Re:
american politicians hate it when they have to follow their first oath
Re: Re:
Copyright apologists hate it when they can’t get all they want.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 6th, 2012 @ 5:00pm
No, law was not enforced. He is a UK citizen living in the UK. He had broken no UK laws.
Re: Re:
Mike Masnick simply hates it when US copyright law is enforced in foreign countries at the behest of private corporations, despite the accused having broken no laws in his own country.
Fixed for the reality you seem to have trouble addressing.
The MPAA said out of the 20k that 90 million dollars will go to the artist.
it was obviously the entertainment industries that decided how much money he was making from his linking site. i am curious as to whether he was supposedly making money from advertising or from the linking?
who decided that ?20,000 is a ‘small sum’?
as the ‘harm’ he was supposedly doing was to the earnings of artists, why is all of that ‘small sum’ going to wherever instead of the artists?
when are the US courts going to wake up and smell the coffee and do something positive to stop all these bogus ‘irreparable harm done through file sharing’ cases, particularly when courts in other countries are forced to comply with laws that are not broken in these other countries and that any monies recouped go into industry coffers, not to those the suit is over?
Someone should start a crowdfunding for him…
Re: Re:
Already done 😉
http://www.gofundme.com/1bo8vo
Is it just me seeing the concidence or does Paul settling for the lower fine (fee?) mirror almost exactly the article above about patient trolls and how they force you to pay up cos the agreed settelment , even if you won , would cost less the lawyer/court costs?
I'll donate!
I’m sure the internet can come together and help this lad out. It is ridiculous that just being charged can cost so much.
Re: I'll donate!
Here’s the donation link. I did 20 Pounds
http://www.gofundme.com/1bo8vo
Another sell-out
I still fail to see why he had to capitulate and do all this. Makes the old blood boil. What the hell 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.
What's 20,000 lawyers rotting in a swamp? A GOOD START!
1 UK ? = 1.57 United States dollars (on a given day)
20,000 ? = $32,060.00 USD.
Just for perspective.
Its still robbery if you ask me.
donate
i want to donate for this