Richard O'Dwyer

[Jamie123]

Much as I love the USA (indeed my wife is a US citizen) I think Britain ought to stand up to America a bit more. Here we have a case a Briton facing extradition to the US for actions committed in Britain which do not even go against British criminal law.

UK student faces U.S. extradition in copyright case | Reuters

Can you imagine this working the other way round? Would the Americans tolerate a US citizen being dragged over to Britain and tried for breaking British laws while he was still in America?

Now I daresay the British authorities are merely honouring the terms of treaties made with the US, but if so I'd blame the people responsible for making those treaties. In return for this so-called "special relationship" (which most Americans have never heard of anyway) politicians have (I suspect) been kowtowing to whatever the Americans want and selling Britain short. It's time we stopped this nonsense. We are not the 51st state, and when we deal with the Americans we should do so as equal partners.

OK - first rant of the day over with.

[Jezebel2011]

What the Americans should be doing is paying Richard O'Dwyer to gain information from him to tighten up their security system, instead of berating him for THEIR website security for being so lax in the first place.

In the UK the banks pay clever young men and women to investigate security on their websites and each time they report a problem they pay them £50.

[Jamie123]

What the Americans should be doing is paying Richard O'Dwyer to gain information from him to tighten up their security system, instead of berating him for THEIR website security for being so lax in the first place.

In the UK the banks pay clever young men and women to investigate security on their websites and each time they report a problem they pay them £50.

I think you're confusing Richard O'Dwyer with Gary McKinnon. McKinnon is a conspiracy theorist who allegedly hacked into US military and NASA computers about 10 years ago. But you're right - he is also fighting extradition to the USA.

O'Dwyer is in trouble because his website included links to other sites where copyright protected material can be illegally downloaded. This is not a crime in the UK. (Perhaps it should be, but it isn't.) The Americans want the British to hand him over, to stand trial in the States where it is illegal.

I can't imagine many countries having the audacity to demand this and expect to be taken seriously. Imagine Mexico asking Washington to hand over American citizens for trial in Mexico, for doing things in the USA which the Mexicans didn't like. The US Government would laugh in their face!

[Blackmarch]

Much as I love the USA (indeed my wife is a US citizen) I think Britain ought to stand up to America a bit more. Here we have a case a Briton facing extradition to the US for actions committed in Britain which do not even go against British criminal law.

UK student faces U.S. extradition in copyright case | Reuters

Can you imagine this working the other way round? Would the Americans tolerate a US citizen being dragged over to Britain and tried for breaking British laws while he was still in America?

Now I daresay the British authorities are merely honouring the terms of treaties made with the US, but if so I'd blame the people responsible for making those treaties. In return for this so-called "special relationship" (which most Americans have never heard of anyway) politicians have (I suspect) been kowtowing to whatever the Americans want and selling Britain short. It's time we stopped this nonsense. We are not the 51st state, and when we deal with the Americans we should do so as equal partners.

OK - first rant of the day over with.

umm well copyright laws are a real tricky thing. depending what was done, it would be tantamount to theft... in which case things could get sticky politically.

In this case if the reverse happened I'd hope that the US would have enough guts to ship the offender out.

Supposing the individual had commited enough copyright infringement that it was in the order of significant amounts of cash owed... otherwise I'd think that it's more of the case as you say.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Blackmarch

[Jamie123]

umm well copyright laws are a real tricky thing. depending what was done, it would be tantamount to theft... in which case things could get sticky politically.

In this case if the reverse happened I'd hope that the US would have enough guts to ship the offender out.

Supposing the individual had commited enough copyright infringement that it was in the order of significant amounts of cash owed... otherwise I'd think that it's more of the case as you say.

It depends what you mean by "infringement" and "the offender". It seems that what this guy did (posting links to sites with copyright-protected material available for download) is not a criminal offence in the country in which he did it. It is illegal in another country, and that other country now wants to punish him for it. Of course a person should respect the laws of the country he's living in, but it's a bit much to expect him to obey the laws of other countries too (except of course when he visits those other countries).

People need to know where they stand. To solve this issue properly, UK and US governments should be working on a consistent set of laws to protect the entertainment industry (and other interests) which respects both their sovereignties, instead of each trying to apply their own peculiar rules to the other.

[Blackmarch]

It depends what you mean by "infringement" and "the offender". It seems that what this guy did (posting links to sites with copyright-protected material available for download) is not a criminal offence in the country in which he did it. It is illegal in another country, and that other country now wants to punish him for it. Of course a person should respect the laws of the country he's living in, but it's a bit much to expect him to obey the laws of other countries too (except of course when he visits those other countries).

People need to know where they stand. To solve this issue properly, UK and US governments should be working on a consistent set of laws to protect the entertainment industry (and other interests) which respects both their sovereignties, instead of each trying to apply their own peculiar rules to the other.

If i had to be a judge in it i would treat him as someone who was assisting, if it could be proven that he knew about the copyright material, and that he was directing individuals there for the sake of obtaining illegitimate copyrighted material... however unless this guy has been a repeat offender or has assisted in a real major way I don't see extradition as an option. Otherwise he should have been given a warning and had the site taken down, or at least not have anything on it that indicate (or direct to) that there was material was owned within another sovereignity.

And i very much agree that the governments really need to iron that one out.

My guess is either there some really annoyed beurocrats that don't have their head on right (both sides of the pond), or someone somewhere wants to set an example for something, or there's more to the story than what we have.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Blackmarch

[Guest]

Much as I love the USA (indeed my wife is a US citizen) I think Britain ought to stand up to America a bit more. Here we have a case a Briton facing extradition to the US for actions committed in Britain which do not even go against British criminal law.

Jamie, this crime does not fall under British Criminal Law. It falls under World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS applied to all WTO members). Britain and the USA are both members of WIPO and WTO hence extradition from Britain to the US, in this case, is completely valid. Both countries signed on that international law!

Some points on the protection of digital copyrights under WIPO and TRIPS applicable to this case:

• An intermediary website (e.g. search engines, ISP's, etc.) is liable of copyright infringement if:

  1.) it contains links to pirated material, AND

  2.) it has knowledge of the copyright infringement and did not do anything to remove the link, AND

  3.) it made money out of the site.

In this case, Richard O'Dwer qualified as liable for copyright infringement.

• Enforcement of copyright infringement is the responsibility of the copyright holder.

In this case, the copyright holder is an American organization.

• The signatory country where the copyright holder belongs to may use their courts for injunction, awarding of damages, and overseeing the destruction of infringing material. Criminal procedures follow the process agreed to by all signatory countries of WIPO or WTO.

In this case, the American court system is where the trial is going to occur - the criminal procedures do not follow American procedures, it follows TRIPS procedures.

So, extradition of the Briton is completely within the rights of the USA under international law.

Can you imagine this working the other way round? Would the Americans tolerate a US citizen being dragged over to Britain and tried for breaking British laws while he was still in America?

This happens all the time to American Organizations. The first one that comes to my mind is the case against Google by Mian Mian, a Chinese author, a case that was heard in China.

Now I daresay the British authorities are merely honouring the terms of treaties made with the US, but if so I'd blame the people responsible for making those treaties. In return for this so-called "special relationship" (which most Americans have never heard of anyway) politicians have (I suspect) been kowtowing to whatever the Americans want and selling Britain short. It's time we stopped this nonsense. We are not the 51st state, and when we deal with the Americans we should do so as equal partners.

OK - first rant of the day over with.

TRIPS and WIPO are very, very popular in the USA. Hello... Napster? And they are very useful in protecting intellectual property across international waters.

You can whine about Britons kowtowing to Americans all day long. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. This is International Law set in place to protect the intellectual property of private individuals or organizations in a modern Global Market.

This is the same law that prevents an American from showing the full version of the Harry Potter Deathly Hallows on their website before it is released from the theaters.

This is the same law that prevents an American from make 50 million illegal copies of Adele's latest album and selling it on Ebay.

Edited January 17, 2012 by anatess

[Jezebel2011]

I think you're confusing Richard O'Dwyer with Gary McKinnon. McKinnon is a conspiracy theorist who allegedly hacked into US military and NASA computers about 10 years ago. But you're right - he is also fighting extradition to the USA.

O'Dwyer is in trouble because his website included links to other sites where copyright protected material can be illegally downloaded. This is not a crime in the UK. (Perhaps it should be, but it isn't.) The Americans want the British to hand him over, to stand trial in the States where it is illegal.

I can't imagine many countries having the audacity to demand this and expect to be taken seriously. Imagine Mexico asking Washington to hand over American citizens for trial in Mexico, for doing things in the USA which the Mexicans didn't like. The US Government would laugh in their face!

Apologies - was thinking of the young man with Aspergers

[prisonchaplain]

This case seemed so bizarre on the surface, I figured we had to be missing important information. Kudos to Anatess for providing it. There are probably still arguments to be made on both sides, but I'm getting increasingly suspicious of the shock stories I find on certain websites--especially when they seem to gain no traction beyond the blogsphere.

[Jamie123]

Jamie, this crime does not fall under British Criminal Law. It falls under World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS applied to all WTO members). Britain and the USA are both members of WIPO and WTO hence extradition from Britain to the US, in this case, is completely valid. Both countries signed on that international law!

Some points on the protection of digital copyrights under WIPO and TRIPS applicable to this case:

• An intermediary website (e.g. search engines, ISP's, etc.) is liable of copyright infringement if:

  1.) it contains links to pirated material, AND

  2.) it has knowledge of the copyright infringement and did not do anything to remove the link, AND

  3.) it made money out of the site.

In this case, Richard O'Dwer qualified as liable for copyright infringement.

• Enforcement of copyright infringement is the responsibility of the copyright holder.

In this case, the copyright holder is an American organization.

• The signatory country where the copyright holder belongs to may use their courts for injunction, awarding of damages, and overseeing the destruction of infringing material. Criminal procedures follow the process agreed to by all signatory countries of WIPO or WTO.

In this case, the American court system is where the trial is going to occur - the criminal procedures do not follow American procedures, it follows TRIPS procedures.

So, extradition of the Briton is completely within the rights of the USA under international law.

This happens all the time to American Organizations. The first one that comes to my mind is the case against Google by Mian Mian, a Chinese author, a case that was heard in China.

TRIPS and WIPO are very, very popular in the USA. Hello... Napster? And they are very useful in protecting intellectual property across international waters.

You can whine about Britons kowtowing to Americans all day long. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. This is International Law set in place to protect the intellectual property of private individuals or organizations in a modern Global Market.

This is the same law that prevents an American from showing the full version of the Harry Potter Deathly Hallows on their website before it is released from the theaters.

This is the same law that prevents an American from make 50 million illegal copies of Adele's latest album and selling it on Ebay.

Thanks for the information Anatess, but I still have two big problems:

Firstly it seems very odd that that the terms of an international treaty which different countries have signed should be inconsistent with the local laws of those countries. People are bound to be confused by what is and isn't allowed.

Secondly if O'Dwyer has broken an international law in Britain he should stand trial for it either in Britain (which is as much a part of the treaty organization as America) or else at an international court. And yes, this goes double if the crime was against a US corporation. Fair trials should be conducted by disinterested parties. This is why a "change of venue" is often made when there is strong local prejudice for or against a defendant. (I was always very suspicious of the way suspected war criminals were tried in Israel for crimes against Jewry.)

Now if what you say about "The signatory country where the copyright holder belongs to may use their courts...etc." is correct, then the treaty does not recognize this principle. Which I think is a problem.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Jamie123
I need to think about this more before responding....

[Jamie123]

This case seemed so bizarre on the surface, I figured we had to be missing important information. Kudos to Anatess for providing it. There are probably still arguments to be made on both sides, but I'm getting increasingly suspicious of the shock stories I find on certain websites--especially when they seem to gain no traction beyond the blogsphere.

The story has got a little further than the blogsphere. It's been in all the newspapers and on the national TV news here in the UK. The Daily Mail had it as their main front page story, entitled "Abandoned by British Justice". (Not that I necessarily think the Mail is a very nice newspaper.)

Edited January 18, 2012 by Jamie123
Going OCD on grammar.

[prisonchaplain]

Jamie, I realize this story has hit some major news outlets. It simply reminded me of so many similar stories, usually involving odd decisions made in schools (10-year old punished for brandishing 'pizza gun' was a recent one: 'Pizza gun' gets 10-year-old in trouble at school ) and this one. They highlight seemingly bizarre decisions, there are a few days of chatter, then nothing--no follow up.

This case is different, in that it is international. On the other hand, if countries have signed international treaties agreeing to subject their citizens to extradition, then the story is far less bizarre. YET, we are not seeing this fact in most of the media accounts--because that information detracts from the sensational angle that's pumping up the interest.

Edited January 18, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

The death of journalism.

What goes for NEWS nowadays is nothing more than propaganda. News outlets pick an agenda then tailor the news to fit.

Okay, it's a broad brush. But, it is so rampant that it is difficult to pick true well-researched news out of the soup.