The strange case of student Richard O'Dwyer.

[Alasdair]

I am very surprised at the decision in this case. It seems bizarre.

Firstly, I understand that copyright infringement is a civil matter in
the UK rather than a criminal one so how could he be extradited for
it?

Secondly, O'Dwyer had not copied (the essence of copyright) anything
but merely pointed visitors to his site to sites where content might
be available.

He was merely acting as a search engine so are all search engines now
criminals?

Everything he did, he did in the UK so how come the US police became
involved?

--
Alasdair.

[George]

You forgot to say the mighty US has barked and Lapdog Cameron has licked
its arseole.

[Janitor of Lunacy]

"Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:qf01h7pelo68635cm...@4ax.com...

>I am very surprised at the decision in this case. It seems bizarre.
>
> Firstly, I understand that copyright infringement is a civil matter in
> the UK rather than a criminal one so how could he be extradited for
> it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

explains the legal rationale for this, and there is a section referring to
O'Dwyer.

> Secondly, O'Dwyer had not copied (the essence of copyright) anything
> but merely pointed visitors to his site to sites where content might
> be available.
>
> He was merely acting as a search engine so are all search engines now
> criminals?

That would depend on the US definition of the offences charged, and their
caselaw, but they only need "reasonable suspicion" rather than "prima facie
evidence" to apply for extradition- and it seems the most potent ground of
appeal here is that in US law, merely providing links to copyrighted
material does not constitute a criminal offence. I'm not an expert, but I'd
be surprised if it didn't.

> Everything he did, he did in the UK so how come the US police became
> involved?

Because, as with Gary McKinnon, his actions are alleged to have had an
effect in the US.

HTH.

[Michael Swift]

In article <qf01h7pelo68635cm...@4ax.com>, Alasdair
<ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> writes

Because the US are fascist twats and think they rule the world.

Whoever sanctioned this obscene extradition 'treaty' should stand trial
for treason.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[Michael Swift]

In article <%G%Pq.422$NB3...@newsfe03.ams2>, Janitor of Lunacy
<zo...@zonk.com> writes

>> Everything he did, he did in the UK so how come the US police became
>> involved?
>
>Because, as with Gary McKinnon, his actions are alleged to have had an
>effect in the US.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

[Alasdair]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:17:24 +0000, Michael Swift
<mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:

>Be afraid, be very afraid.
>
>Mike

It would seem that we, in the UK, are not only subject to UK law and
to European Law but to US law as well.

There is a well known legal maxim that ignorance of the law is no
excuse but these days, we are expected to know not only domestic law
but European law and US law to boot! What other countries' laws are
we not allowed to be ignorant of?

[Mel Rowing]

On Jan 14, 12:33 am, Alasdair <m...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:17:24 +0000, Michael Swift
>

> <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
> >Be afraid, be very afraid.
>
> >Mike
>
> It would seem that we, in the UK, are not only subject to UK law and
> to European Law  but to US law as well.
>
> There is a well known legal maxim that ignorance of the law is no
> excuse but these days, we are expected to know not only domestic law
> but European law and US law to boot!  What other countries' laws are
> we not allowed to be ignorant of?

The general rule is that persons can only be extradited to another
country if the offeence in question is also and offence were it
committed here.

Infringement of copyright is an offence here under the Copyright
Designs and Patents Axct of 1988 (Section 107) Trading Officers go to
great lengths to seize material that has been produced in breach of
copyright.

No sympathy should be wasted on this character he did it to make money
(about £15000 in one year I heard) One could not fail to notice he
travelled first class by train from Sheffield (with his mother) for
his court hearing.

Surely ever producer, performer and manufacturer is entitled to the
fruits of their own industry and protection of those fruits. You would
not allow the product of a production line to be pilfered so waht is
the difference?

Copyright infringment damages industries destroys initiative and costs
jobs. Ultimately if this practice is allowed to go unchecked there
will be no recording or film industries left to damage. Then the
copiers will perhaps be happy.

[djornsk]

I think it is pretty disgusting that legislation exists which allows
extraditions of this kind, although AIUI this may be appealed and not
take place.

Whilst I have sympathy for the need for composers, songwriters, and
performers to earn a crust, the idea that the law should be used to
protect the commercial interests of effectively one barrow on the
marketplace over another, of one competitor for peoples' disposable
income over another, and to the extent of criminalising individuals in
this way, is above my comprehension.

j

[johannes]

Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>
> "Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
> news:qf01h7pelo68635cm...@4ax.com...
> >I am very surprised at the decision in this case. It seems bizarre.
> >
> > Firstly, I understand that copyright infringement is a civil matter in
> > the UK rather than a criminal one so how could he be extradited for
> > it?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
>
> explains the legal rationale for this, and there is a section referring to
> O'Dwyer.
>
> > Secondly, O'Dwyer had not copied (the essence of copyright) anything
> > but merely pointed visitors to his site to sites where content might
> > be available.
> >
> > He was merely acting as a search engine so are all search engines now
> > criminals?
>
> That would depend on the US definition of the offences charged, and their
> caselaw, but they only need "reasonable suspicion" rather than "prima facie
> evidence" to apply for extradition- and it seems the most potent ground of
> appeal here is that in US law, merely providing links to copyrighted
> material does not constitute a criminal offence. I'm not an expert, but I'd
> be surprised if it didn't.

Yes it seems a strange decision if providing a link amounts to copyright
infringement in this case, and not for google? But two things:

Google could defend themselves that their software is automatic, so they don't
deliberately provide any unwanted links. As long as they react if someone
wants the link removed. Much the same as e.g. with defamation problems, the
ISP is in the clear as long as they reacts swiftly on requests for the
material to be removed.

Except that the link must have been put there by the site owner. But no one
wants to defame themselves. If the link is put there by the site owner, then
how can they complain if the site is accessed? Perhaps the intention was that
the site should only be accessed through a pay-site, and the guy somehow found
an unprotected back door. But is this copyright infringement? Was he asked to
remove his links?

[®i©ardo]

...having no choice in the matter following Tony BLiar's sell-out of UK
citizens' rights to the US.

--
Moving things in still pictures

[pensive hamster]

On Jan 14, 12:33 am, Alasdair <m...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:17:24 +0000, Michael Swift
>

> <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
> >Be afraid, be very afraid.
>
> >Mike
>
> It would seem that we, in the UK, are not only subject to UK law and
> to European Law  but to US law as well.
>
> There is a well known legal maxim that ignorance of the law is no
> excuse but these days, we are expected to know not only domestic law
> but European law and US law to boot!  What other countries' laws are
> we not allowed to be ignorant of?

Yes, it is a bit worrying. If one were, hypothetically, to say in a
newsgroup that the US-based $illytologists were a money-grubbing cult,
and to quote some sections from their published work, could they apply
for one's extradition on the basis that one's alleged libel and
distribution of copyright material had caused them financial loss and
harm to their reputation in the US? Or in Venezuela, or anywhere else
where they had a branch?

Or if, again hypothetically, one were to donate some money to the
charity Medical Aid for Palestinians
http://www.map-uk.org/
and the US government were to claim that this money had actually been
used for terrorist purposes?

[Ian]

"®i©ardo" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:CfidnaQFzMcD_YzS...@giganews.com...

So why does the GuvMint not revoke this "agreement"? All it takes is an Act
of Parliament.

Only side effect in the O'Dwyer case is that he would be unwise to visit the
US in the future. But that is possibly a bonus......

[®i©ardo]

They've a lot of other inherited shit to sort out first - like the
bankrupting of the UK by Gordie and chums, extricating ourselves from an
American colonial war in Afghanistan and the Social Security bill.

[®i©ardo]

On 14/01/2012 19:42, 展奄rdo wrote:
> On 14/01/2012 14:51, Ian wrote:

>> "展奄rdo"<he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

Sorry, forgot a bit - sorting out this so-called devolution "good idea",
where everyone gets their own "government" except the English majority.

[Tired]

George wrote:

The British Government acts only as the law allows. Has Cameron as Prime
Mininster introduced any laws which have made this easier?

[Mel Rowing]

Well look at in terms of protecting both barrows from shoplifters.

[djornsk]

Copyright creates a complex product and it is understandable that many
people will not make that comparison.

Agreed that copyright infringement is wrong, however the remedies should
be proportionate and no way is shipping him 1000s of miles to a country
with an alien justice system justifiable IMO.

j

[Mel Rowing]

There is no absolute measure of proportionality. That is a matter for
the court dealing with the case. usually it is a matter of comparing
the offence with sentences imposed for similar offences also taking
into account indidual circumstances such as age, degree of involvement
etc.

These particular offences were committed against US companies where UK
courts have no jurisdiction and AFAIK not any British company. It
should also be realised that O'Dwyer did not act as he did through
altruism or some notion of principle. His sole purpose was to make
money and he did make a considerable amount.out of deliberately
pointng copiers in the dirction of illegal download sites that were in
effect committing theft gainst US companies.

[Alasdair]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:23:50 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>These particular offences were committed against US companies where UK
>courts have no jurisdiction and AFAIK not any British company. It
>should also be realised that O'Dwyer did not act as he did through
>altruism or some notion of principle. His sole purpose was to make
>money and he did make a considerable amount.out of deliberately
>pointng copiers in the dirction of illegal download sites that were in
>effect committing theft gainst US companies.

His motive is totally irrelevant to his guilt. In the UK, the essence
of copyright infringement is the copying of protected material and
O'Dwyer did no copying. He merely provided information in the same
way as Google and other search engines do it pointing people to sites.
If I set up a website giving details of suppliers of guns, knives,
poisons and other items suitable for killing human beings, I can
hardly be convicted of murder if someone uses my site to source
strychnine to bump off their wife.

The US authorities are cowards. They won't prosecute Google because
it has the resources to fight back while O'Dwyer cannot mount a
realistic defence through lack of monies. He may have made a few
pounds out of his "directory" but that won't last long when he pays
US attornies' fees.

[Mel Rowing]

On Jan 16, 12:37 am, Alasdair <m...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:23:50 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
>

> <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >These particular offences were committed against US companies where UK
> >courts have no jurisdiction and AFAIK not any British company. It
> >should also be realised that O'Dwyer did not act as he did through
> >altruism or some notion of principle. His sole purpose was to make
> >money and he did make a considerable amount.out of deliberately
> >pointng copiers in the dirction of illegal download sites that were in
> >effect committing theft gainst US companies.
>
> His motive is totally irrelevant to his guilt.  In the UK, the essence
> of copyright infringement is the copying of protected material and
> O'Dwyer did no copying.  He merely provided information in the same
> way as Google and other search engines do it pointing people to sites.
> If I set up a website giving details of suppliers of guns, knives,
> poisons and other items suitable for killing human beings, I can
> hardly be convicted of murder if someone uses my site to source
> strychnine to bump off their wife.

That would depend upon how the court would deem what use a user to the
site might put it to. If it were deemed that the sites only or primary
purpose was to help people get round the law then you are aiding and
abetting even if you have never met or even spoken to the principals
concerned.

It's all very well you holding torch for these people but it isn't you
that is losing anything. No doubt those who are are making their
plight felt to that government to whom they pay their taxes and so
understandably expect action.

[Big Les Wade]

Mel Rowing <mel.r...@btinternet.com> posted

>
>The general rule is that persons can only be extradited to another
>country if the offeence in question is also and offence were it
>committed here.
>
>Infringement of copyright is an offence here under the Copyright
>Designs and Patents Axct of 1988 (Section 107)

Only if the infringement is in the course of a business.

Mere infringement is a civil wrong, not a criminal offence.

>Trading Officers go to
>great lengths to seize material that has been produced in breach of
>copyright.
>
>No sympathy should be wasted on this character

It is not so much a question of sympathy for him, but of worrying how
this affects the rest of us. Maybe if I play online poker with my friend
in Michigan I will be extradited to serve ten years in Sing Sing.

>he did it to make money
>(about £15000 in one year I heard)

Crime of the century.

When the US-UK extradition treaty was signed we were assured that it
would only be applied to the most serious offences, usually of the Four
Horsemen type.

In practice, it includes blokes who publish lists of URLs. Or at least
it does if America wants to extradite someone from Britain. If it was
the other way round ...

--
Les

[Mel Rowing]

On Jan 16, 7:38 pm, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> posted

>
>
>
> >The general rule is that persons can only be extradited to another
> >country if the offeence in question is also and offence were it
> >committed here.
>
> >Infringement of copyright is an offence here under the Copyright
> >Designs and Patents Axct of 1988 (Section 107)
>
> Only if the infringement is in the course of a business.
>
> Mere infringement is a civil wrong, not a criminal offence.

Then see

http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/criminal_justice/patact.htm

> >he did it to make money
> >(about £15000 in one year I heard)
>
> Crime of the century.
>
> When the US-UK extradition treaty was signed we were assured that it
> would only be applied to the most serious offences, usually of the Four
> Horsemen  type.
>
> In practice, it includes blokes who publish lists of URLs. Or at least
> it does if America wants to extradite someone from Britain. If it was
> the other way round ...

Published lists of URLs so as to attract aid and abet those who wish
to download material illegally
.
Not true ! The UK has refused 7 out of over 100+ applications from the
US. Out of 50+ requests made by the UK from the US none have been
refused.

[Ian]

"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:636c9d07-b3fe-4977...@d8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Coronor's Court hearing into murder of some of our soldiers by US "friendly"
fire..... "They Ain't Coming To Give Evidence" was the response from our
"allies".

[S]

On Jan 17, 8:42 am, "Ian" <i...@henden.co.uk> wrote:
> "Mel Rowing" <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

Can you understand the difference between a witness in a coroner's
court and an accused in a criminal court? The extradition only applies
to the latter, not to the former.

[Logician]

visit http://www.youtube.com/v/cx8obpx4844?autoplay=1 the site talks
jobs being lost. What happens when jobs go to China?

[Logician]

Many films sold in the USA would breach English law, so can we start
extradition proceedings of the filmakers so they can be jailed in the
UK?

Many people in the UK drinking beer would be in breach of Saudi law,
so can the Saudi's start to extradite Britons to stand trial?

[Ian]

"S" <s_pick...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bbf30099-6ecc-48a3...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since a witness in a Coronors Court is not (usually) under threat of being
prosecuted, there is little risk in such a witness attending and being
subsequently prosecuted. So why did the US not facilitate the attendance of
the required witnesses? OTOH, if attendance at a Coroners Court is optional
then how come a UK citizen can be prosecuted for failing to atttend if
required?

The Oxford Coroner clearly considered that the attendance of US service
personnell was pertinant to his investigation into the killing of our
Servicemen by US "friendly" fire. But the Yanks told us basiccally, to fuck
off.

This one-sided "agreement" needs to be dumped. Now.

[S]

On Jan 21, 2:03 pm, "Ian" <i...@henden.co.uk> wrote:
> "S" <s_pickle2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

They obviously felt that they had nothing to gain from it.

> OTOH, if attendance at a Coroners Court is optional
> then how come a UK citizen can be prosecuted for failing to atttend if
> required?

I repeat that the extradition treaty does not provide for the
extradition of witnesses. So there is simply no way of forcing a
witness who is not already in the UK to attend.

> The Oxford Coroner clearly considered that the attendance of US service
> personnell was pertinant to his investigation into the killing of our
> Servicemen by US "friendly" fire. But the Yanks told us basiccally, to fuck
> off.
>
> This one-sided "agreement" needs to be dumped. Now.

It has nothing to do with the one-sided treaty. The US would not be
able to extradite a witness from the UK either.

[Ian]

"S" <s_pick...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8605aee4-a000-4f5c...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

----------------------------------------------------------

The Coroner did. And it's not for the Yanks to decide whether or not they
have anything to gain from it, just as the yanks consider it is not in the
British remit to decide one way or another in the O'Dwyer case.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

> OTOH, if attendance at a Coroners Court is optional
> then how come a UK citizen can be prosecuted for failing to atttend if
> required?

I repeat that the extradition treaty does not provide for the
extradition of witnesses. So there is simply no way of forcing a
witness who is not already in the UK to attend.

-----------------------------

Well it jolly well should be, where the case is sufficiently serious. Like
the killing of British soldiers.

---------------------------------------------------------------

> The Oxford Coroner clearly considered that the attendance of US service
> personnell was pertinant to his investigation into the killing of our
> Servicemen by US "friendly" fire. But the Yanks told us basiccally, to
> fuck
> off.
>
> This one-sided "agreement" needs to be dumped. Now.

It has nothing to do with the one-sided treaty. The US would not be
able to extradite a witness from the UK either.

-------------

No. They'd just accuse him of something (cf Wikipedia boss) and aquire him
that way.