<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;richard o'dwyer&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:06:26 PST</pubDate>
<title></title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/13575521262/richard-odwyer-has-to-pay-20000-to-close-out-lawsuit-against-him.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/13575521262/richard-odwyer-has-to-pay-20000-to-close-out-lawsuit-against-him.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, we wrote about how student Richard O'Dwyer <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/07520621168/richard-odwyer-cuts-deal-to-avoid-extradition-to-us.shtml">cut a deal</a> 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 <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20630804" target="_blank">ordered that he pay &pound;20,000</a>.  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 &pound;20,000 will be going to the artists O'Dwyer supposedly was harming?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/13575521262/richard-odwyer-has-to-pay-20000-to-close-out-lawsuit-against-him.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/13575521262/richard-odwyer-has-to-pay-20000-to-close-out-lawsuit-against-him.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121206/13575521262/richard-odwyer-has-to-pay-20000-to-close-out-lawsuit-against-him.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-that's-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121206/13575521262</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:32:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Richard O'Dwyer Cuts Deal To Avoid Extradition To The US</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/07520621168/richard-odwyer-cuts-deal-to-avoid-extradition-to-us.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/07520621168/richard-odwyer-cuts-deal-to-avoid-extradition-to-us.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It appears that the ridiculous saga of the US's baseless criminal case against Richard O'Dwyer is now ending, as O'Dwyer has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-20525891#TWEET400523" target="_blank">effectively cut a deal to pay a small sum</a> in exchange for avoiding extradition and trial in the US.  If you don't recall, O'Dwyer, a computer science student, ran TVshack.net, one of the sites that ICE and the DOJ seized during one of their many questionable censorship days, in which they seize domain names, in direct conflict with what the law requires. Then they went the extra step of seeking to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/14240014708/us-trying-to-extradite-uk-tvshack-admin-over-questionable-copyright-charges.shtml">extradite</a> O'Dwyer to face criminal charges in the US.  In this case, it was doubly bizarre, because O'Dwyer, a UK citizen, was running a site that was nearly identical to some other sites that had been found to be perfectly legal in the UK -- and one of the pre-requisites for a criminal copyright charge is that the person needs to be willfully violating the law.  Given that other comparable sites were found to be legal, it's difficult to see how US officials could meet that bar.  There was also the fact that the US was, as it had attempted in the Rojadirecta case, trying to create a completely made up theory of criminal copyright liability for <i>secondary infringement</i>.  In fact, as we noted in other cases, US courts have found that what TVshack was doing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/05165019928/judge-posner-embedding-infringing-videos-is-not-copyright-infringement-neither-is-watching-them.shtml">was not infringement</a>.
<br /><br />
The O'Dwyer case continued to get plenty of attention, with widespread <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/10114319564/jimmy-wales-confident-that-uk-govt-wont-ignore-200000-signatures-against-odwyer-extradition.shtml">protests</a> in the UK, especially after UK officials <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/10132918091/uk-govt-agrees-to-extradite-richard-odwyer-to-us-linking-to-possibly-infringing-stuff.shtml">approved</a> his extradition to the US.  Now, however, the case will be wrapped up under what's known as "deferred prosecution" in which O'Dwyer will pay a "small sum" and the case will be concluded.  You can see why O'Dwyer would do this deal after a year and a half of fighting the extradition.  It's also not too surprising that the DOJ would agree to such a deal, given how it ran from other similar cases once it realized that there was competent legal help absolutely decimating its ridiculous legal theories.  The DOJ had to realize that it was likely to lose badly even if O'Dwyer was extradited -- so now they get to save face and pretend that O'Dwyer paying a small sum is a form of "victory."
<br /><br />
It's good that the case is over and that O'Dwyer can get on with his life, though it's ridiculous that any part of this case ever happened.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/07520621168/richard-odwyer-cuts-deal-to-avoid-extradition-to-us.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/07520621168/richard-odwyer-cuts-deal-to-avoid-extradition-to-us.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/07520621168/richard-odwyer-cuts-deal-to-avoid-extradition-to-us.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sad-that-it-had-to-come-to-this,-but-good-that-it's-over</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121128/07520621168</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:02:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Gary Mckinnon Extradition To US Blocked By UK Home Secretary</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/09573720718/gary-mckinnon-extradition-to-us-blocked-uk-home-secretary.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/09573720718/gary-mckinnon-extradition-to-us-blocked-uk-home-secretary.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Way back in 2002, Gary McKinnon made his Techdirt <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20021112/1041233.shtml">debut</a> when he was caught hacking into NASA and Pentagon computers from the UK in an apparent attempt to find evidence that America was covering up evidence of UFOs. Since that story, subsequent <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080828/0946072123.shtml">stories</a> were done on how he basically went on an appeal-losing-tour to avoid being extradited to the United States. But now, despite all those losses, it appears the United Kingdom&#39;s version of Fox Mulder will indeed be staying in the UK and not be trotted off to the States.<br />
<br />
UK Home Secretary Theresa May has announced that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138">McKinnon will not be extradited due to mental illness</a> and a fear for his safety. McKinnon reportedly suffers from both depression and Asperger&#39;s Syndrome, and experts consulting with May believe that he is a significant suicide risk if extradited.
<blockquote>
<i>Mrs May said: "After careful consideration of all of the relevant material I have concluded that Mr McKinnon&#39;s extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon&#39;s human rights. I have therefore withdrawn the extradition order against Mr McKinnon."</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Mrs May also said measures would be taken to enable a UK court to decide whether a person should stand trial in the UK or abroad - a so-called forum bar.</i></blockquote>
This move is immensely significant, as it represents the first time an extradition was blocked by a Home Secretary under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003">Extradition Act of 2003</a>. As extraditions over alleged computer and IP crimes have come into <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=extradite">vogue</a>, with the United States leading the charge, it&#39;s a welcome sign that the UK wants to be able to review cases in which their citizens would potentially be carted across the world to face massive prison sentences (or worse). One would hope similar scrutiny would be applied in the case of Richard O&#39;Dwyer, though Theresa May has thus far <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/00374519790/uk-wont-extradite-terrorists-if-you-build-site-that-helps-people-watch-tv.shtml">failed</a> to do so. Instead, she has so far bowed to the will of the United States and MPAA <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/00374519790/uk-wont-extradite-terrorists-if-you-build-site-that-helps-people-watch-tv.shtml">sock puppetry</a> in extraditing him.<br />
<br />
To be clear, none of this suggests that McKinnon will not face a trial at home. In fact, according to May, the UK will now decide whether to bring a case against him at home.
<blockquote>
<i>She said it was now for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, to decide whether he should face trial in the UK.</i></blockquote>
Where he can be tried without the added threat to his well-being. A foreign national, accused of computer crimes against the United States facing trial in his home country. How refreshing.<br />
<br />
&nbsp;<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/09573720718/gary-mckinnon-extradition-to-us-blocked-uk-home-secretary.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/09573720718/gary-mckinnon-extradition-to-us-blocked-uk-home-secretary.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/09573720718/gary-mckinnon-extradition-to-us-blocked-uk-home-secretary.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hacker-stay-home</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121016/09573720718</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Aug 2012 12:30:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Leaked Documents Detail The MPAA's Plans For Sock Puppetry To Mislead People About Richard O'Dwyer</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/02595019941/leaked-documents-detail-mpaas-plans-sock-puppetry-to-mislead-people-about-richard-odwyer.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/02595019941/leaked-documents-detail-mpaas-plans-sock-puppetry-to-mislead-people-about-richard-odwyer.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Honestly, the MPAA needs to hire someone who actually understands a modern media strategy -- rather than a media strategy from the last century.  It seems like nearly <i>everything</i> they do or say is calculated to piss off the public, rather than convince them of anything reasonable.  Every chance they have to say the right thing, they say the wrong thing.  Every chance they have to take a step towards making a connection with the public, they go the other way.  We've seen how they call their biggest fans criminals.  We've seen how they attack the internet.  The latest is their Quixotic campaign against Richard O'Dwyer.
<br /><br />
TorrentFreak, which lately has been on a streak of finding and publishing leaked info from the legacy entertainment industry, has done it again, publishing <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/leaked-mpaa-memo-reveals-tv-shack-press-strategy-120805/" target="_blank">the MPAA's talking points document for responding to press inquiries about O'Dwyer</a>, the UK college student that the US government is trying to extradite from the UK for running TVShack.net.  They also have <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-recruits-surrogates-to-support-extradition-of-uk-student-120806/?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">the MPAA's plans to find sock puppets to attack O'Dwyer</a>.  The two documents are from July 19th, so it's quite recent, and they try to respond to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120624/13305419447/jimmy-wales-campaigns-to-stop-despicable-attempt-to-extradite-try-richard-o-dwyer.shtml">Jimmy Wales'</a> recent involvement in trying to stop the extradition process.  As with any good propaganda, the MPAA appears to take comments out of context to twist them against O'Dwyer.  For example, it quotes that the site reminded people of how much money they were saving by watching free videos, rather than paying for movies.  But nothing in that statement says that the videos they were watching were infringing copies -- just substitutes for going to the theater.
<br /><br />
The sock puppet document is the really telling one, in that they admit that that the "overall media coverage has been and will continue to be challenging."  Now, when pretty much everyone sides with O'Dwyer and against the MPAA, a <i>normal, sane</i> organization might think that its strategy is (perhaps) a mistake.  But the MPAA instead decides to double down by trying to find sock puppets to publish blog posts and editorials about why O'Dwyer is a dirty stinking criminal:
<blockquote><i>
To counter these assertions, the MPAA and its allies need a coordinated effort to focus more on the criminal activity involved in the operation of TVShack and other similar linking sites. Ideally, this would be done through third parties &#8211; but finding third parties &#8211; especially in the United Kingdom &#8211; has been very difficult so far, so the MPAA must be prepared to respond to media requests on the issue and set the record straight to counter the misinformation campaign by our opponents.
</i></blockquote>
The thing is, the only "misinformation campaign" is coming from the MPAA itself, with these talking points and "how can we get stooges to spin this" document.  The folks supporting O'Dwyer have no such things.  They just speak the truth.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, the documents completely ignore the legal arguments that make the O'Dwyer case incredibly questionable.  They, of course, highlight the recent <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/16430219517/exceptionally-troubling-ruling-uk-owners-links-site-guilty-conspiracy-to-defraud.shtml">surfthechannel.com ruling</a> in the UK to support the argument that O'Dwyer was breaking the law in the UK and the US.  But that ignores the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120628/15435419530/anonymous-courtroom-notes-raise-serious-questions-about-surfthechannel-conviction.shtml">many questions</a> raised by that ruling, and the fact that multiple similar cases went <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1549298157.shtml">the other way</a> or that similar US cases also seem to be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/05165019928/judge-posner-embedding-infringing-videos-is-not-copyright-infringement-neither-is-watching-them.shtml">going the other way</a> too (though, that last one came out after this document was written).
<br /><br />
There are also some laughable claims about how the decision to go after O'Dwyer was made by Homeland Security and ICE.  However, as documents in other cases have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120502/16575418746/judge-lets-feds-censor-blog-over-year-so-riaa-could-take-its-sweet-time.shtml">shown</a>, ICE relied heavily on claims from the RIAA and MPAA, despite little evidence to support those claims.
<br /><br />
Separately, the MPAA weakly tries to hit back on the claims about internet freedom by saying that "this case isn't about Internet freedom. It's about a man profiting from theft."  Funny, he hasn't been charged with "theft" as far as I can tell.  It seems that the MPAA has trouble with <i>ever</i> being truthful -- even when claiming its providing facts to counter misinformation.  And, as the Posner ruling recently showed, being a third party site that has embeds of infringing videos isn't infringing itself -- so arguing that O'Dwyer is some sort of master criminal is pretty laughable.
<br /><br />
Then there's this:
<blockquote><i>
Copyright law is a tool to protect the work of creators and makers, not censorship
</i></blockquote>
They should try to tell that to some of the many people whom copyright has been used to censor over the years.  The fact that copyright was <i>supposed</i> to be a tool to protect creators does not mean it can't be used for censorship. It is, regularly.  The two things are hardly mutually exclusive. And, if the MPAA were being honest (ha ha, I know...) it would note that it doesn't represent the interests of creators and makers at all.  It represents the studios, who do whatever they can to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/13500315912/hollywood-accounting-darth-vader-not-getting-paid-because-return-jedi-still-isnt-profitable.shtml">rip off</a> content creators... while keeping the copyright for themselves.  If the MPAA wants to spew bogus "talking points," (and get sock puppets to do so for it) perhaps it should start by figuring out how to defend its regular actions that block artists from getting paid.
<br /><br />
In the end, though, this just highlights how incredibly tone deaf the MPAA and its communications staff is to public perception.  Attacking Richard O'Dwyer, who has strong public support behind him is not a winning strategy by any means.  I'm trying to figure out what the MPAA thinks it's accomplishing here and I'm drawing a blank.  The more the MPAA seeks to demonize O'Dwyer, the worse it looks.  Even if he is extradited and convicted, all they're doing is creating another hero/martyr, and more people who think the MPAA is an old, out of touch, unwilling-to-adapt monster, locking up college students.  At best, I'm thinking the MPAA thinks this will act as an "education campaign" targeted at other sites running forums like O'Dwyer's.  But that seems doubtful at best.  Similar sites are all over the internet and have been for years.  All this effort is doing is helping the MPAA dig its own hole deeper and deeper.  It's like a perfect case study in how not to do communications strategy today.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/02595019941/leaked-documents-detail-mpaas-plans-sock-puppetry-to-mislead-people-about-richard-odwyer.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/02595019941/leaked-documents-detail-mpaas-plans-sock-puppetry-to-mislead-people-about-richard-odwyer.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/02595019941/leaked-documents-detail-mpaas-plans-sock-puppetry-to-mislead-people-about-richard-odwyer.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nice-try-guys</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120806/02595019941</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:17:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Terrorists And Pedophiles Get More Protection In UK Than Guy Who Hosted Links To TV Shows</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/00374519790/uk-wont-extradite-terrorists-if-you-build-site-that-helps-people-watch-tv.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/00374519790/uk-wont-extradite-terrorists-if-you-build-site-that-helps-people-watch-tv.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For a while now, we've been following the ridiculous story of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=o%27dwyer">Richard O'Dwyer</a>, the student in the UK who the US is trying to extradite to face <i>criminal</i> charges, all because he created a website where people <i>linked</i> to streaming TV shows (some legal, some not).  At no time did he host illegal content.  He just built the site.  While the public has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/04332719602/poll-shows-only-9-uk-public-think-richard-odwyer-should-be-extradited.shtml">spoken out</a> against the extradition, the Home Office, led by Home Secretary Theresa May, has so far <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/10114319564/jimmy-wales-confident-that-uk-govt-wont-ignore-200000-signatures-against-odwyer-extradition.shtml">held fast</a> to sending O'Dwyer across the Atlantic.
<br /><br />
Given all that, it's interesting to see this story, sent over by <a href="https://twitter.com/I_need_2_tell_u/statuses/226904911399501824" target="_blank">PressurCookrTheatr</a>, highlighting the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9418163/The-foreign-criminals-we-dont-try-to-deport.html" target="_blank">kinds of folks that Theresa May and the UK Home Office have <b>refused</b> to extradite</a> over the last few years.  It turns out it's a large and growing number, and even includes some terrorists.  In those cases, however, May has magically decided that there are "human rights" reasons to keep them in the UK.
<ul><i>
<li>In 2011, at least one terrorist &#8211; and possibly up to four &#8211; was allowed to stay, as well as up to eight killers and rapists. Also among the total were 20 robbers and up to eight paedophiles, plus as many as four people convicted of firearms offences.</li>
<li> In 2010, the Home Office conceded in the cases of up to four murderers and up to four people convicted of manslaughter, as well as up to four rapists, up to eight paedophiles and 43 people convicted of violent crime or robbery. </li>
</i></ul>
That's from The Telegraph, which found out that and much more via a Freedom of Information Act request.  The article has a lot more detail, but it seems pretty clear that May and the UK government have rejected extradition on all sorts of cases involving people accused of all sorts of horrible things.  But when it comes to O'Dwyer?  Well, you know, the MPAA is upset with him, so he's gotta go...
<br /><br />
Apparently many of these decisions were made to avoid violating the Human Rights Act.  For example, one guy, a Ukrainian accused of running "Britain's biggest sham marriage racket," has avoided extradition because he has two kids in the UK.  What O'Dwyer should have been doing, instead of fighting extradition through legal means, was knocking someone up so he had a kid in the UK to convince Theresa May that he should stay.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/00374519790/uk-wont-extradite-terrorists-if-you-build-site-that-helps-people-watch-tv.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/00374519790/uk-wont-extradite-terrorists-if-you-build-site-that-helps-people-watch-tv.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/00374519790/uk-wont-extradite-terrorists-if-you-build-site-that-helps-people-watch-tv.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>terrrorists-don't-bother-the-MPAA</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120723/00374519790</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:19:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Poll Shows Only 9% Of UK Public Think Richard O'Dwyer Should Be Extradited</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/04332719602/poll-shows-only-9-uk-public-think-richard-odwyer-should-be-extradited.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/04332719602/poll-shows-only-9-uk-public-think-richard-odwyer-should-be-extradited.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A poll conducted in the UK has found that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/richard-odwyer-extradition-opposed-majority?CMP=twt_gu" target="_blank">only 9% of those surveyed agreed that student Richard O'Dwyer should be extradited</a> to face criminal charges in the US for creating TVShack, a site that let people link to videos hosted elsewhere.  So far, the government has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/10114319564/jimmy-wales-confident-that-uk-govt-wont-ignore-200000-signatures-against-odwyer-extradition.shtml">ignoring</a> public cries not to allow the extradition, but this poll really seems to suggest that the public is not too keen on shipping O'Dwyer overseas.
<blockquote><i>
Only 9% of the British public believe he should face trial in the US for his actions, according to the YouGov research. The largest group, 46%, said O'Dwyer should not be prosecuted at all, while 26% felt he should be tried in the UK.
</i></blockquote>
At some point, something has to give.  The UK Home Office can't keep pretending that this is a minor issue that it can brush under the rug to keep the American government (and Hollywood) happy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/04332719602/poll-shows-only-9-uk-public-think-richard-odwyer-should-be-extradited.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/04332719602/poll-shows-only-9-uk-public-think-richard-odwyer-should-be-extradited.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/04332719602/poll-shows-only-9-uk-public-think-richard-odwyer-should-be-extradited.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>will-of-the-people</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120706/04332719602</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Jimmy Wales Confident That UK Gov't Won't Ignore 200,000+ Signatures Against O'Dwyer Extradition</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/10114319564/jimmy-wales-confident-that-uk-govt-wont-ignore-200000-signatures-against-odwyer-extradition.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/10114319564/jimmy-wales-confident-that-uk-govt-wont-ignore-200000-signatures-against-odwyer-extradition.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We mentioned, recently, that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120624/13305419447/jimmy-wales-campaigns-to-stop-despicable-attempt-to-extradite-try-richard-o-dwyer.shtml">started a petition</a> to try to stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer, the UK student who set up a site for users to point others to online sources for TV shows (some of which were legit, some of which were infringing) -- and is now facing extradition and criminal charges in the US for daring to help people find video online.   Since then <a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard" target="_blank">the petition has received well over 200,000 signatures</a>, including UK politicians <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/29/richard-odwyer-160000?newsfeed=true" target="_blank">from all three parties</a>.  You might think that the UK government would take notice.
<br /><br />
Not yet, it seems.
<br /><br />
The UK Home Office <a href="http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2188558/home-office-ignore-anti-odwyer-extradition-petition" target="_blank">is apparently ignoring the petition</a> and sticking with the party (i.e., Hollywood lobbyist) line.  The site V3 (linked in the last sentence) reached out to the Home Office who said that they were aware of the petition, but didn't seem to care:
<blockquote><i>
"Richard O'Dwyer is wanted in the US for offences related to copyright infringement," a Home Office spokesman told V3. 
<br /><br />
"The UK courts found there were no statutory bars to his surrender under the Extradition Act 2003 and on 9 March the Home Secretary, having carefully considered all relevant matters, signed an order for his extradition to the US." 
</i></blockquote>
That said, Jimmy Wales insists that the "low level" spokesperson <a href="https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/220154886598299648" target="_blank">"is wrong"</a> and he fully expects that the Home Office will, in fact, respond after meeting with him about this issue.  Let's hope that's true.  Given the large public outcries about other related copyright issues (SOPA, ACTA...) you would think that the UK government would at least be paying attention when a rather large group of the public speaks out on an issue related to copyright.  Hopefully, the answer given to V3 was just a spokesperson stalling until the Home Office is ready to officially address the matter.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/10114319564/jimmy-wales-confident-that-uk-govt-wont-ignore-200000-signatures-against-odwyer-extradition.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/10114319564/jimmy-wales-confident-that-uk-govt-wont-ignore-200000-signatures-against-odwyer-extradition.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/10114319564/jimmy-wales-confident-that-uk-govt-wont-ignore-200000-signatures-against-odwyer-extradition.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>public-will-be-damned</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120703/10114319564</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>UK Politician Speaks Out Against The Travesty Of Trying To Deport Richard O'Dwyer To Feed Hollywood's Anger</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/00160319501/uk-politician-speaks-out-against-travesty-trying-to-deport-richard-odwyer-to-feed-hollywoods-anger.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/00160319501/uk-politician-speaks-out-against-travesty-trying-to-deport-richard-odwyer-to-feed-hollywoods-anger.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Given the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120624/13305419447/jimmy-wales-campaigns-to-stop-despicable-attempt-to-extradite-try-richard-o-dwyer.shtml">renewed attention</a> in the Richard O'Dwyer case, it's good to see UK MP Tom Watson <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/25/tom-watson-richard-odwyer-extradition" target="_blank">speak out eloquently against the extradition</a>.  Watson hits on a bunch of good points, starting with the fact that O'Dwyer was "hung out to dry" by UK politicians who don't seem to even care about the details here.  He notes that the response is clearly disproportionate and then gets to the heart of the matter:
<blockquote><i>
"Somewhere behind this case lie the powerful vested interests of the content industry. If they succeed in exercising their lobbying might by forcing the extradition of an able student to face trial in America, it will further undermine public confidence in an important treaty designed to combat terrorism.
<br /><br />
"But let's also be honest about what is going on at the heart of this case: a generation for whom the net is not a 'new' technology are being hung out by an older generation of lawmakers who do not understand the new reality of the connected digital planet.
<br /><br />
"Mr O'Dwyer's situation can be sorted out with common sense at the top of the UK government and US administration. But how many more bright youngsters will have their lives turned upside down because we haven't reached a new copyright settlement that understands the internet is here to stay?"
</i></blockquote>
Of course, it won't just undermine confidence in the extradition treaty, but also in copyright law.  After all, O'Dwyer linked to content all over the web, rather than hosting it himself -- and a nearly identical site was already found legal in the UK (which certainly suggests a lack of "willful" infringement, which is necessary for a criminal copyright infringement charge in the US).  Either way, it's good to see more high profile people -- especially those in government, realize that the attempt to extradite O'Dwyer is a travesty.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/00160319501/uk-politician-speaks-out-against-travesty-trying-to-deport-richard-odwyer-to-feed-hollywoods-anger.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/00160319501/uk-politician-speaks-out-against-travesty-trying-to-deport-richard-odwyer-to-feed-hollywoods-anger.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/00160319501/uk-politician-speaks-out-against-travesty-trying-to-deport-richard-odwyer-to-feed-hollywoods-anger.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-would-be-a-mistake</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120627/00160319501</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Jimmy Wales Campaigns To Stop The Despicable Attempt To Extradite &#038; Try Richard O 'Dwyer</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120624/13305419447/jimmy-wales-campaigns-to-stop-despicable-attempt-to-extradite-try-richard-o-dwyer.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120624/13305419447/jimmy-wales-campaigns-to-stop-despicable-attempt-to-extradite-try-richard-o-dwyer.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/richard-o-dwyer-my-petition" target="_blank">speaking out against the attempt to extradite Richard O'Dwyer</a> from the UK to the US.  As we've been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=richard+o%27dwyer">detailing</a> over the past year, O'Dwyer ran a site called TVShack.net, that was a search engine for TV shows.  It pointed people to the results, some of which were authorized -- and some of which were infringing.  But, of course, a search engine should not reasonably be blamed for the results in points to.  In fact, the admin of an extremely similar site in the UK, TV-Links, had faced criminal charges in the UK, but was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1549298157.shtml">found not guilty</a>, because just linking to infringing content is not a crime.  And yet... the US has pushed <i>really</i> hard to extradite O'Dwyer, and tragically, the UK has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/10132918091/uk-govt-agrees-to-extradite-richard-odwyer-to-us-linking-to-possibly-infringing-stuff.shtml">approved</a> this charade.
<br /><br />
Wales recently met with O'Dwyer and learned the details of the story, and was quite reasonably horrified:
<blockquote><i>
<p>Given the thin case against him, it is an outrage that he is being extradited to the US to face felony charges. No US citizen has ever been brought to the UK for alleged criminal activity on US soil. There is a disparity here that ought to raise concerns at the highest levels of government in both the US and UK.</p><p>From the beginning of the internet, we have seen a struggle between the interests of the "content industry" and the general public. Due to heavy lobbying and much money lavished on politicians, until very recently the content industry has won every battle. Internet users handed the industry its first major defeat earlier this year with the epic <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/18/online-copyright-war-internet-hit-back" title="">Sopa-Pipa protests</a> over planned copyright laws that culminated in a widespread internet blackout and 10 million people contacting the US Congress to voice their opposition.</p><p>O'Dwyer is the human face of that battle, and if he's extradited and convicted, he will bear the human cost.</p>
</i></blockquote>
Wales has set up an online petition addressed to the UK government seeking to 
<a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard" target="_blank">stop the extradition of O'Dwyer</a>.  Who knows if it will actually have any impact, but getting more people to speak out about this ridiculous overreach by ICE and the Justice Department would be a good thing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120624/13305419447/jimmy-wales-campaigns-to-stop-despicable-attempt-to-extradite-try-richard-o-dwyer.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120624/13305419447/jimmy-wales-campaigns-to-stop-despicable-attempt-to-extradite-try-richard-o-dwyer.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120624/13305419447/jimmy-wales-campaigns-to-stop-despicable-attempt-to-extradite-try-richard-o-dwyer.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>speak-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120624/13305419447</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Facebook Blocking Stories About Richard O'Dwyer's Fight Against Extradition To The US</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/15531718548/facebook-blocking-stories-about-richard-odwyers-fight-against-extradition-to-us.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/15531718548/facebook-blocking-stories-about-richard-odwyers-fight-against-extradition-to-us.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, this is unfortunate, though Facebook does have a history of somewhat arbitrarily deciding what you can and can't talk about.  A few years ago, we noted that it had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090408/2132314439.shtml">blocked any link</a> to The Pirate Bay -- even if it had nothing to do with infringing material.  A year later, we discovered an even more unfortunate situation, in that it wouldn't allow <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100726/17493610367.shtml">any mention</a> of Power.com -- a company it was in a legal dispute with.  However, it keeps getting worse.  We've written multiple times about Richard O'Dwyer's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/10132918091/uk-govt-agrees-to-extradite-richard-odwyer-to-us-linking-to-possibly-infringing-stuff.shtml">fight</a> to prevent being extradited to the US for running a site, TVshack.net, which links to TV shows -- some of which were infringing.  As we noted, there are all sorts of important questions being discussed around this case, both about copyright law and the US's influence over UK courts.
<br /><br />
Apparently, Facebook doesn't want you discussing any of that.
<br /><br />
The Guardian's James Ball wrote an <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/18/richard-odwyer-extradition-piracy-charges" target="_blank">interesting article about how some UK politicians are fighting</a> to stop the extradition.  It's a good article.  But, you won't find out about it on Facebook apparently.  The story details how Tim Farron, president of the LibDems, in the UK has called the extradition approval "ludicrous" and has asked the government to reconsider.
<br /><br />
However, as James Losey discovered, <a href="http://jameslosey.com/post/21345118902/when-spam-filters-go-too-far" target="_blank">Facebook won't let you post about it</a> -- calling the article "spammy or unsafe."  Specifically, it appears that (as with TPB) Facebook is blocking any and all mention of TVShack.net.  However, Facebook's spam implementation is <i>so stupidly programmed</i> that it can't figure out that this is a story about TVShack.net in the well-respected Guardian newspaper, and not a direct link to TVShack.net.  And, of course, merely linking to TVShack.net isn't against the law, so it's bizarre, obnoxious and stupid for Facebook to be blocking all such links in the first place.  Finally, since the US government <i>seized</i> TVshack.net nearly two years ago, I don't think the site is really that unsafe any more, unless you don't trust the government to keep its server clean (which, actually, might be reasonable).
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/UYvHa"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/UYvHa.png" width=500 /></a>
</center>
Either way, shame on Facebook for hamfisted "filtering" which blocks important and legitimate discussions. <b>Update</b>: Facebook has fixed this particular issue, and now lets people post that story, but it's unclear what the overall rules are.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/15531718548/facebook-blocking-stories-about-richard-odwyers-fight-against-extradition-to-us.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/15531718548/facebook-blocking-stories-about-richard-odwyers-fight-against-extradition-to-us.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/15531718548/facebook-blocking-stories-about-richard-odwyers-fight-against-extradition-to-us.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120418/15531718548</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:07:21 PDT</pubDate>
<title>UK Decides Hollywood, US Gov't's Interests More Important Than Own Citizens; Extradites Student For Linking</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/10132918091/uk-govt-agrees-to-extradite-richard-odwyer-to-us-linking-to-possibly-infringing-stuff.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/10132918091/uk-govt-agrees-to-extradite-richard-odwyer-to-us-linking-to-possibly-infringing-stuff.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In January, a judge said that the UK <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/09184917400/us-to-extradite-uk-student-copyright-infringement-despite-site-being-legal-uk.shtml">could</a> extradite student Richard O'Dwyer to the US to face criminal copyright infringement charges for the "crime" of linking to streaming videos  hosted elsewhere -- something that had already been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100115/1051307772.shtml">found legal</a> in the UK <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110225/10324413257/uk-court-dismisses-yet-another-bogus-criminal-lawsuit-against-torrent-tracker-admins.shtml">multiple times</a>.  This is pretty important, because for it to be <i>criminal</i> infringement, it has to be willful, and if sites that were nearly identical to O'Dwyer's TVShack.net were found legal in his home country, where he lived and where he operated the site, it's difficult to see how there's anything willful at all.  
<br /><br />
Furthermore, since he's only <i>linking</i> there isn't direct infringement, only the possibility of secondary infringement.  Now, there are aiding and abetting laws, but it would have to be aiding and abetting of <i>criminal copyright infringement</i> and that would require the <i>users</i> of TVShack to be guilty of criminal infringement -- meaning that <i>they</i> were profiting from willful infringement.  And that doesn't seem likely either.  There are so many holes in the case it's difficult to understand why ICE and DHS are ruining the life of a UK student with no clear legal basis.
<br /><br />
Either way, as the UK government continues to kowtow to the US entertainment industry, the Secretary of State has taken the court's initial okay and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17355203" target="_blank">approved the extradition</a>.  This is really damning for the UK government.  Given the growing concerns about the overreach of the entertainment industry to take away basic freedoms, sending Richard O'Dwyer across the Atlantic on bogus charges just so the MPAA can stick his head on a pike somewhere isn't going to go over very well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/10132918091/uk-govt-agrees-to-extradite-richard-odwyer-to-us-linking-to-possibly-infringing-stuff.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/10132918091/uk-govt-agrees-to-extradite-richard-odwyer-to-us-linking-to-possibly-infringing-stuff.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/10132918091/uk-govt-agrees-to-extradite-richard-odwyer-to-us-linking-to-possibly-infringing-stuff.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120313/10132918091</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Feb 2012 05:50:53 PST</pubDate>
<title>Would The US Extradite UK Blogger For Linking To Works In The Public Domain In Other Countries?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/00455517613/would-us-extradite-uk-blogger-linking-to-works-public-domain-other-countries.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/00455517613/would-us-extradite-uk-blogger-linking-to-works-public-domain-other-countries.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ James Firth has an interesting post, talking about some of the more <a href="http://www.slightlyrightofcentre.com/2012/01/shrinking-public-domain-animal-farm.html" target="_blank">ridiculous consequences of current US law enforcement interpretation</a> of copyright law.  Looking at the case of Richard O'Dwyer, the computer science student that the US is getting closer to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/09184917400/us-to-extradite-uk-student-copyright-infringement-despite-site-being-legal-uk.shtml">extraditing</a> to the US to face <i>criminal</i> copyright infringement charges for merely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/14240014708/us-trying-to-extradite-uk-tvshack-admin-over-questionable-copyright-charges.shtml">linking</a> to infringing works (something that had already been found <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100115/1051307772.shtml">legal</a> in the UK <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110225/10324413257/uk-court-dismisses-yet-another-bogus-criminal-lawsuit-against-torrent-tracker-admins.shtml">multiple times</a>), Firth takes it to its logical ends.  He points out that George Orwell's works, <i>Animal Farm</i> and <i>1984</i> have gone into the public domain in  South Africa, Canada or Australia.  And thus, there are <i>completely legal</i> free copies of such works online.  But they're only legal in those countries.  In the US and the UK, both remain under the yoke of copyright thanks to copyright extensions.
<br /><br />
This leads to a simple fear.  If he merely pointed people to the location of these <i>completely legal</i> versions of the work, he would now be just as "guilty" as Richard O'Dwyer under the interpretation of the US Justice Department.  After all, he is using a .com domain (American property, according to the stretched interpretation of the DOJ) to link to works that technically infringe in both the UK -- where he is -- and the US, where the DOJ has suddenly become the US entertainment industry's private police force.
<br /><br />
This is creating a truly chilling effect on speech around the globe.  The public domain is the public domain for a purpose, and it's somewhat insane to think that US actions are now chilling the mere discussion of where public domain works in other countries can be obtained completely legally in those countries.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/00455517613/would-us-extradite-uk-blogger-linking-to-works-public-domain-other-countries.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/00455517613/would-us-extradite-uk-blogger-linking-to-works-public-domain-other-countries.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/00455517613/would-us-extradite-uk-blogger-linking-to-works-public-domain-other-countries.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>insanity-of-today's-copyright-laws</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120201/00455517613</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:10:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>US Can Extradite UK Student For Copyright Infringement, Despite Site Being Legal In The UK</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/09184917400/us-to-extradite-uk-student-copyright-infringement-despite-site-being-legal-uk.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/09184917400/us-to-extradite-uk-student-copyright-infringement-despite-site-being-legal-uk.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Want to understand just how insane things may get under SOPA/PIPA?  Just take a look at what's <i>already happening</i> under today's laws.  Back in 2010, one of the first websites that Homeland Security's ICE (Immigrations & Customs Enforcement) group <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100630/14391410029.shtml">seized</a> was TVShack.net.  TVShack was a site that collected <i>links</i> to TV shows.  Certainly, many of those shows were likely to be infringing -- but TVShack did not host the content at all, it merely linked to it.  Richard O'Dwyer, the guy who ran the site, was a student building an interesting project over in the UK.  However, the US Department of Justice decided that he was not only a hardened criminal, but one who needed to be tried on US soil.  Thus, it began <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/14240014708/us-trying-to-extradite-uk-tvshack-admin-over-questionable-copyright-charges.shtml">extradition procedures</a>.  Even worse, nearly identical sites in the UK had already been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100115/1051307772.shtml">found legal</a> multiple <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110225/10324413257/uk-court-dismisses-yet-another-bogus-criminal-lawsuit-against-torrent-tracker-admins.shtml">times</a> -- with the court noting that having links to some infringing content was certainly not criminal copyright infringement.  That makes things even more ridiculous, because extradition is <i>only</i> supposed to be allowed for activities that are criminal in both the US and the UK.
<br /><br />
But, seriously, think about how insane this is.  With all the problems in the world, the US was spending time trying to extradite a UK student to the US, because he set up a site that had links to some infringing material.  Is this really the best use of US law enforcement's time?
<br /><br />
O'Dwyer has been fighting the extradition attempt... but today, unfortunately, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/student-to-face-us-trial-over-tvshack-website-6289235.html" target="_blank">a UK judge ruled against him</a>.
<blockquote><i>
District Judge Purdy said in his ruling: "There are said to be direct consequences of criminal activity by Richard O'Dwyer in the USA albeit by him never leaving the north of England.
<br /><br />
"Such a state of affairs does not demand a trial here if the competent UK authorities decline to act and does, in my judgment, permit one in the USA."
<br /><br />
He added: "I reject all challenges advanced to this request. No bars or other challenge being raised or found, I send the case to the Secretary of State." 
</i></blockquote>
O'Dwyer can and almost certainly will appeal this decision.  But this is just ridiculous.  And this is under existing laws.  Just think what happens under SOPA/PIPA -- which are even more targeted at foreign sites.  Do we really want the US government going around the world, dragging kids from their homes and taking them back to the US to throw them in jail... because they set up a web page with some links on it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/09184917400/us-to-extradite-uk-student-copyright-infringement-despite-site-being-legal-uk.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/09184917400/us-to-extradite-uk-student-copyright-infringement-despite-site-being-legal-uk.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/09184917400/us-to-extradite-uk-student-copyright-infringement-despite-site-being-legal-uk.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>scary-scary-stuff</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120113/09184917400</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:59:53 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How The US Gov't's Bogus Extradition Attempt Of Richard O'Dwyer Is Destroying Lives For No Reason</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/04270415056/how-us-govts-bogus-extradition-attempt-richard-odwyer-is-destroying-lives-no-reason.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/04270415056/how-us-govts-bogus-extradition-attempt-richard-odwyer-is-destroying-lives-no-reason.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been covering the absolutely ridiculous attempt by the US government (mainly ICE and the Justice Department) to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/14240014708/us-trying-to-extradite-uk-tvshack-admin-over-questionable-copyright-charges.shtml">extradite</a> former TVShack admin Richard O'Dwyer from the UK to the US to face criminal copyright charges.  This is absolutely shameful for a variety of reasons, including the fact that sites quite similar to O'Dwyer's have been found to be perfectly legal in the UK, and the US appears to be using <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/04014414727/why-is-justice-department-pretending-us-copyright-laws-apply-uk.shtml">highly dubious claims</a> in its reasoning for extradition.  Even worse, the Justice Department and ICE are clamped up tight on this one, refusing to make any on-the-record comments about this attempt to take a kid, who doesn't appear to have done anything against the law, and drag him across the ocean against his will to put him on trial for criminal charges.
<br /><br />
TorrentFreak has the (admittedly, extremely biased) <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/tvshack-the-human-cost-of-extradition-a-mothers-story-110712/" target="_blank">thoughts from O'Dwyer's mother on the whole situation</a>.  It's really heart-breaking to think that the US government can be so actively destroying this family, despite an incredibly weak case.
<blockquote><i>
As the ICE agents left they shook his hand and said &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t worry Richard you won&rsquo;t be going to America&rdquo;. Actually &ldquo;going to America&rdquo; had never entered Richard&rsquo;s head! The same day Richard closed down the website himself.
<br /><br />
On attending with Richard to answer bail in May this year when we expected he would either be charged or questioned further, he was told by the Police that the criminal investigation in the UK had been dropped. He was then told that he was going to be rearrested as they now had a Warrant for his Extradition to the US!
<br /><br />
[....]
<br /><br />
I am most concerned about Richard being in jail in America with no access to his family or friends. Given the current economic climate along with the distance it would not be feasible for anyone to be able to visit him if he were in jail in the US. The idea of having to spend around &pound;1500 or more in air fares and hotels etc. in order to visit my son for one hour in a US jail is ridiculous and prohibitive. This is in total breach of his Human Rights, rights which other non &ndash; British subjects are afforded in the UK even some who have allegedly committed serious crimes 
<br /><br />
[....]
<br /><br />
From a personal perspective this trauma has totally taken over my life. I hold a responsible senior position as a Specialist Nurse for Terminally ill children. My job requires me to advise other professionals and parents regarding strong medications for children.
<br /><br />
I need to concentrate on my job and to be able to function at a high level. Since this nightmare came into our family I have been unable to work due to being off sick due to the stress. My concentration and level of functioning have been greatly affected to the degree that I would not be safe to do my job.
</i></blockquote>
You really should <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/tvshack-the-human-cost-of-extradition-a-mothers-story-110712/" target="_blank">read the whole thing</a>.
<br /><br />
And, really, who is this helping?  At all?  TVShack didn't host any of the content.  It's still very much out there, and tons of others are linking to that very same content, much of which you can find with a simple Google search.  So destroying this family doesn't stop or even slow down the infringement.  It does raise serious questions about the US/UK extradition procedures, which seem to (contrary to the official claims) totally ignore the fact that similar sites have been found legal in the UK already.
<br /><br />
When this case first came to light, I reached out to folks at both the Justice Department and Homeland Security to get comments, and both refused, pointing me only to press releases about domain seizures.  Frankly, anyone involved in this case should be sickened and ashamed of themselves right now.  This is not some criminal mastermind.  This was a kid who built a simple website, which didn't host any infringing content, and is now being railroaded and destroyed by a system because a few folks in Hollywood say so.  The fact that ICE now doesn't even try to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101130/23192212067/homeland-security-admits-that-its-private-police-force-entertainment-industry.shtml">hide the fact</a> that it's doing this at the behest of a few entertainment industry giants, who don't want to adapt to the changing marketplace, just makes the whole thing even more disgusting.
<br /><br />
This has nothing to do with protecting "rightsholders."  Such rightsholders could go after those uploading content themselves if they wanted to.  This seems to be a case where the existing administration is trying to destroy this family for no good reason at all, other than Hollywood told them to do it.  Sickening.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/04270415056/how-us-govts-bogus-extradition-attempt-richard-odwyer-is-destroying-lives-no-reason.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/04270415056/how-us-govts-bogus-extradition-attempt-richard-odwyer-is-destroying-lives-no-reason.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/04270415056/how-us-govts-bogus-extradition-attempt-richard-odwyer-is-destroying-lives-no-reason.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>are-these-people-proud-of-themselves?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110712/04270415056</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:38:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Is The Justice Department Pretending US Copyright Laws Apply In The UK?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/04014414727/why-is-justice-department-pretending-us-copyright-laws-apply-uk.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/04014414727/why-is-justice-department-pretending-us-copyright-laws-apply-uk.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We already mentioned the attempt by the US to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110615/14240014708/us-trying-to-extradite-uk-tvshack-admin-over-questionable-copyright-charges.shtml">extradite</a> Richard O'Dwyer, a UK student who ran TVShack.net and TVShack.cc, both of which were seized by ICE.  Unfortunately, most of the press reports out of the UK lacked details, and I wasn't even entirely sure that an actual attempt at extradition had been made, or if there was just fear on the part of the O'Dwyer family.  After some digging, however, it appears that this is absolutely the case.  The Justice Department, out of the Southern District of NY -- the same DOJ offices that have been involved in the ICE seizures -- and ICE, via the US embassy in London, made the request to extradite O'Dwyer.  I've now heard that from three separate sources.  I also called the folks in the press office at the US Attorneys' office in SDNY to see if they were willing to respond to questions about the attempted extradition, and the answer is they don't want to talk about it at all.  I believe the two quotes were "there is nothing in the public record we can comment on" and "there is no additional guidance we can give you," though they did offer to send me the press release they sent out when they helped seize the TVShack domains.  Helpful.
<br /><br />
Now, let's be entirely clear here.  Dwyer has not violated UK law.  Pretty much everyone agrees on this.  In our initial post, we discussed a few similar cases in the UK that showed such site administrators were not liable.  UK legal experts have been saying that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8580390/Expert-British-law-has-allowed-linking-to-pirated-material.html" target="_blank">what O'Dwyer did is legal in the UK</a> as it matches up almost entirely with previous cases where people doing nearly identical things were found to have not violated the law.
<br /><br />
So this is a massive jurisdictional and sovereign disaster waiting to happen.  Basically, the US appears to be claiming that if you do anything on the internet, you're subject to US laws.  That's <i>crazy</i> and is going to come back to haunt US law enforcement.  Do they not realize that this is the same thing that other countries have tried to do to US citizens?  The US even passed a law, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100811/00361310577.shtml">the SPEECH Act</a>, to make it clear that US citizens were not subject to the liability of other national laws, just because such things happen on the internet.  To then turn around and pretend the opposite is true for everyone else is just massive hypocrisy.
<br /><br />
Separate from all that, it's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110104/12324012513/did-homeland-security-make-up-non-existent-criminal-contributory-infringement-rule-seizing-domain-names.shtml">highly questionable</a> if O'Dwyer is even violating <i>US criminal copyright law</i>, because there is no such thing as contributory <i>criminal</i> infringement (there is for civil copyright law, but it's nowhere to be found in criminal law).
<br /><br />
Effectively, it appears that the US government wants to seize someone and drag them across the ocean to face federal charges for doing something that was (a) perfectly legal in his home country and (b) probably legal in the US.  Do they not see how that might create some issues?
<br /><br />
Honestly, this seems like the latest in a long series of massive screwups by ICE and the DOJ in the Southern District of NY, who appear to have rushed into the whole "copyright enforcement online" arena without bothering to understand the technical, legal and political issues involved.  What they've done here is create an international incident, for which there will undoubtedly be ramifications.  I've heard that while O'Dwyer is fighting the extradition, many suggest that it's effectively a done deal, that the UK government has agreed to the extradition <i>without any scrutiny of the actual charges</i>.  I'm embarrassed that my country would make such a request in the first place, and shocked that the UK would merrily go along with it, sans scrutiny.  It's gone beyond exporting our IP laws through treaties and diplomatic pressure to the absolutely ridiculous stance that the US government can (1) make up their version of copyright law and then (2) automatically apply those made up laws around the globe.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/04014414727/why-is-justice-department-pretending-us-copyright-laws-apply-uk.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/04014414727/why-is-justice-department-pretending-us-copyright-laws-apply-uk.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/04014414727/why-is-justice-department-pretending-us-copyright-laws-apply-uk.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>insanity</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110617/04014414727</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>