Comments on: Opinion: Stop the extradition of Richard O’Dwyer

By: julia o'dwyer

julia o'dwyer — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:35:40 +0000

I received this very disappointing e mail from Nick Cleggs office, and here I was thinking the Libdems would have some power to influence the Coalition decisions on extradition reform

Dear Julia,
Thanks for your email.
There is currently no timescale for the findings of the Liberal Democrat review, but I should make it clear that this review will only inform Liberal Democrat policy and Nick’s personal position on the matter. However, it will not change Government policy, and as you are aware, the responsibility for decisions on the extradition of individuals remains with the Home Secretary in a quasi-judicial role.
I’m sorry I can’t be of further help, and thanks once again for your email.

With best wishes,

Rory Belcher
Office of Nick Clegg MP

By: Sheogorath

Sheogorath — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 04:49:55 +0000

“I can’t comment with authority, Charles, but I think the links were to other websites where users could stream live TV, etc. I think the reason the judge ruled against Richard recently, was that the links were actively posted on his website rather than automatically displayed like Google.”
Actively posted by the members of the website and not actively policed, although link removal and member banning did occur for any links complained about. If the U.S. Government wants to us to use their laws in this state, then fine. Isn’t how the site was run enough to get Safe Harbor Provisions under the DMCA?

By: pdh

pdh — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:24:40 +0000

“And then they looked from the government to the corporation, from the corporations back to the government, and they were unable to tell the difference” – animal farm

By: Stuart Mitchell

Stuart Mitchell — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:24:49 +0000

“Richard’s actions were not a crime in the UK… Quite simply, it goes against the terms of the Extradition Treaty if his actions were not a crime in both countries.”

That’s your opinion but the judge in this case came to a very different conclusion after full consideration of the facts. He said :-

“I am satisfied the conduct alleged in the instant request meets the dual criminality test and would be an offence in this jurisdiction.”

Though O’Dwyer’s supporters are inevitably trying to portray him as a hapless student who posted a few “links”, the full court judgement (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf) paints a very different picture of a man who admitted to earning advertising revenue of £15,000 per month from what was very obviously copyright abuse on a huge scale. The “business” was so lucrative that when the US authorities shut down the original site in June 2010, O’Dwyer set up a new domain name within 24 hours so he could continue raking in money from content that other people had paid to produce.

Quite frankly I think O’Dwyer’s supporters would be better putting their time and effort to better use helping people who actually deserve it.

As for O’Dwyer, seeing as we all believe in community justice around here, perhaps the best punishment for him might be to spend a few months working as a teaboy in some of the more hard pressed sectors of our entertainment industry. If he actually saw first hand the huge amount of hard work people put in to producing things like films and music, at huge financial risk, then he might not be quite so blase about helping others to pilfer copyright material for free.

By: Gavin R. Putland

Gavin R. Putland — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:55:39 +0000

If the American jury thinks O’Dwyer’s likely sentence is excessive, it can acquit him regardless of the “law” and the facts, and the acquittal is binding. It’s called “jury nullification”. Spread the word!

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:01:48 +0000

I can’t comment with authority Charles but I think the links were to other websites where users could stream live tv etc. I think the reason the judge ruled against Richard recently was that the links were actively posted on his website rather than automatically displayed like google.

By: Ed Joyce

Ed Joyce — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:28:44 +0000

An excellent post raising an issue that causes problems on an ongoing basis. If a crime has been committed it should be tried in the UK. The McKinnon case has been dragging on for a long time

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:58:47 +0000

What form were these links? To my mind they could take two different forms each with a different level of complicity in copyright theft. A link to a website where you can then download a file is different to a download link which allows you to download a file from another website without leaving the one you’re on.

If you’re providing download links, then you’re essentially providing the website where these files are downloaded from, it’s just that the files don’t reside on your sever. To my mind this is against the spirit if not the letter of the law. Anyone who clicks on that link is automatically going to start downloading that file.

If you’re only providing links to websites then you are comparable to Google and the Yellow Pages, someone clicking the link isn’t necessarily going to download the file. There’s room for doubt; room for some other service to be the purpose of your website.

By: jason

jason — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:23:23 +0000

Such double standardsare against the concept of “Justice for all”. However, they are, in such circumstances, to be expected.
After all, were double standards a bar to political office, the HoP would be sparsely populated indeed.

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:19:59 +0000

It’s also worth pointing out that the Duchess of York is not being extradited to Turkey on the grounds that her actions weren’t illegal in this country: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9018074/Theresa-May-accused-of-double-standards-over-Duchess-of-York-extradition-to-Turkey.html