Don't just whine, take time to sign and O'Dwyer'll be fine

forfuxsake

Richard O'Dwyer is a 24 year old British student at Sheffield Hallam University in the UK. He is facing extradition to the USA and up to ten years in prison, for creating a website – TVShack.net – which linked (similar to a search-engine) to places to watch TV and movies online.

O'Dwyer is not a US citizen, he's lived in the UK all his life, his site was not hosted there, and most of his users were not from the US. America is trying to prosecute a UK citizen for an alleged crime which took place on UK soil.

The internet as a whole must not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement. As citizens we must stand up for our rights online.

When operating his site, Richard O'Dwyer always did his best to play by the rules: on the few occasions he received requests to remove content from copyright holders, he complied. His site hosted links, not copyrighted content, and these were submitted by users.

Copyright is an important institution, serving a beneficial moral and economic purpose. But that does not mean that copyright can or should be unlimited. It does not mean that we should abandon time-honoured moral and legal principles to allow endless encroachments on our civil liberties in the interests of the moguls of Hollywood.

Richard O'Dwyer is the human face of the battle between the content industry and the interests of the general public. Earlier this year, in the fight against the anti-copyright bills SOPA and PIPA, the public won its first big victory. This could be our second.

This is why I am petitioning the UK's Home Secretary Theresa May to stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer. I hope you will join me.

- Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder

to sign go here

chin_grin

Quick! Get Sean Sherlock on the case!

Captain Darling

Did he profit from this site?

up for anything

I signed. He's too pretty to be in jail.

FatherLen

i really hope this doesn't happen. it's a disgrace that we even need to sign a petition for such a ludicrous situation.

ejmaztec

I bet the CIA has all the routes to the Ecuadorian embassy in London covered.

Dravokivich

The internet as a whole must not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement

Eh, this isn't about censorship. It's control over the distribution of intellectual properties by an unlicensed means, which this guy provided a medium to do so.

Don't know anything regarding the legalities of the request to extradite, but it seems to be made a point of interest for something unrelated.

forfuxsake

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh, this isn't about censorship. It's control over the distribution of intellectual properties by an unlicensed means, which this guy provided a medium to do so.

Don't know anything regarding the legalities of the request to extradite, but it seems to be made a point of interest for something unrelated.

I'm more against the idea that somebody can be extradited to America to face prosecution for crimes that were committed in Europe. Especially when a European justice system decided not to press charges and that if they had he would have faced 6 months rather than ten years in a US Federal Penitentiary.

He didn't upload anything, didn't distribute anything and didn't sell anything other than ad space. It is the equivalent of telling your mates where to buy bootleg cds. A crime? probably. Worthy of 10 years in a US prison? definitely not.

ejmaztec

forfuxsake wrote: »

I'm more against the idea that somebody can be extradited to America to face prosecution for crimes that were committed in Europe. Especially when a European justice system decided not to press charges and that if they had he would have faced 6 months rather than ten years in a US Federal Penitentiary.

He didn't upload anything, didn't distribute anything and didn't sell anything other than ad space. It is the equivalent of telling your mates where to buy bootleg cds. A crime? probably. Worthy of 10 years in a US prison? definitely not.

Didn't his lawyers argue that the service he provided was no worse than Google, which also comes up with same info?

Dravokivich

forfuxsake wrote: »

I'm more against the idea that somebody can be extradited to America to face prosecution for crimes that were committed in Europe. Especially when a European justice system decided not to press charges and that if they had he would have faced 6 months rather than ten years in a US Federal Penitentiary.

Fair enough, but that all depends on whatever treaties USA and England have in place and to be honest, is nothing I know anything about.

forfuxsake wrote: »

He didn't upload anything, didn't distribute anything and didn't sell anything other than ad space. It is the equivalent of telling your mates where to buy bootleg cds. A crime? probably. Worthy of 10 years in a US prison? definitely not.

He didn't have to upload anything, he provided a directory of such for people to find unlicensed intellectual property. That website and the content of such is his responsiblity even if it is by user submission and redirects to other sites which the content is hosted on. That is the issue he is faced with, the founder of Wikipedia makes it sound like the accused is a victim of an agenda driven by online censorship.

With regards to conviction, punishment or jailtime to be served, again that all refers back to treaties and whether or not such a request is applicable to be made. Stuff I've admittedly no knowledge on. I just don't like the way it's been used as an item with someone who has ideals unrelated to what the actual issue was.

christmas2012

I just signed very quick and easy to do,you dont have to register at all,hope he doesnt get jail i think it would be an awful misjustice if that did happen..

forfuxsake

Dravokivich wrote: »

Fair enough, but that all depends on whatever treaties USA and England have in place and to be honest, is nothing I know anything about.



He didn't have to upload anything, he provided a directory of such for people to find unlicensed intellectual property. That website and the content of such is his responsiblity even if it is by user submission and redirects to other sites which the content is hosted on. That is the issue he is faced with, the founder of Wikipedia makes it sound like the accused is a victim of an agenda driven by online censorship.

With regards to conviction, punishment or jailtime to be served, again that all refers back to treaties and whether or not such a request is applicable to be made. Stuff I've admittedly no knowledge on. I just don't like the way it's been used as an item with someone who has ideals unrelated to what the actual issue was.

well then sure don't sign.

Dravokivich

forfuxsake wrote: »

well then sure don't sign.

I ehm won't. Was just adding an alternative viewpoint as a discussion piece. Can't have everything onesided now can we?

Duggy747

With the right keywords Google is the best place to find anything like TV Shows or software, no matter how long the links have been active.

PrincessLola

Oh America, trying to police other countries.

forfuxsake

Dravokivich wrote: »

I ehm won't. Was just adding an alternative viewpoint as a discussion piece. Can't have everything onesided now can we?

Not in a debate you can't, no. I just read the story and thought I would ask others to sign as well.Of course this is AH and you expect people to argue. I understand the concept of alternative viewpoints and debate. Those who disagree can settle this very easily by simply not signing, hopefully without feeling the need to discourage others from doing so.

My name is URL

ejmaztec wrote: »

I bet the CIA has all the routes to the Ecuadorian embassy in London covered.

TVShack didn't just provide links to videos hosted elsewhere. They embedded those videos on the site itself. The site was explicitly set up to facilitate copyright infringement, unlike Google etc.

If you own a hardware shop and somebody buys a crowbar to break into houses, you're not culpable. If you own a shop which sells tools especially for the purpose of breaking into houses then you might be.

He shouldn't be extradited, but he shouldn't be devoid of blame either. He knew the risks of what he was doing but opted to do it anyway. And he definitely would have made a profit from it.. even if he only used it to help grow the site.

I Heart Internet

forfuxsake wrote: »

The internet as a whole must not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement. As citizens we must stand up for our rights online.

I'd agree with most of what you say and all-in-all would prefer if he wasn't extradited. Although I can see why copyright holders would be upset by what he was doing.

As someone else has pointed out though - this isn't about censorship.

Duggy747

There's many sites out there which act like directories to hosted links, similar to what TVShack was doing. But, they point-blank refused to have anything hosted on their own servers to avoid a case like this.

Many of which were tackled by the FBI but couldn't be shut down because of the loophole where they didn't host anything on the site's own server.

Dravokivich

forfuxsake wrote: »

Not in a debate you can't, no. I just read the story and thought I would ask others to sign as well.Of course this is AH and you expect people to argue. I understand the concept of alternative viewpoints and debate. Those who disagree can settle this very easily by simply not signing, hopefully without feeling the need to discourage others from doing so.

I'm not looking to promote any cause, or act against this one either. I merely questioned the validity of Jimmy Wales' intentions as this issue which he decided to rally behind has no basis on the previous issues brought up regarding censorship. This is a focal point of his article.

forfuxsake

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not looking to promote any cause, or act against this one either. I merely questioned the validity of Jimmy Wales' intentions as this issue which he decided to rally behind has no basis on the previous issues brought up regarding censorship. This is a focal point of his article.

Ok you're right.

forfuxsake

My name is URL wrote: »

TVShack didn't just provide links to videos hosted elsewhere. They embedded those videos on the site itself. The site was explicitly set up to facilitate copyright infringement, unlike Google etc.

If you own a hardware shop and somebody buys a crowbar to break into houses, you're not culpable. If you own a shop which sells tools especially for the purpose of breaking into houses then you might be.

He shouldn't be extradited, but he shouldn't be devoid of blame either. He knew the risks of what he was doing but opted to do it anyway. And he definitely would have made a profit from it.. even if he only used it to help grow the site.

This is all I am suggesting. Probably he was a naughty boy and perhaps deserves a slap on the wrist or a caution. He doesn't deserve 10 years in a fed pen and that is why I am asking people to sign. I am also deeply uncomfortable with the idea that EU citizens can be sent to America for trial regarding crimes committed in the EU.

MaxSteele

British government just giving the usual arse lick and quick tug to their masterly overlords. Can't believe a government would betray and extradite a citizen thousands of miles across the Atlantic because a few fat f*** americans whinge about petty online streaming on UK soil.

It's a slap on the wrist here ... he'll be doing serious time over in the US among hardened criminals if convicted. Not to mention the years he could be waiting in County jail before he's even tried.

Sure he'll have great fun. He can join the Aryan Brotherhood, get a few swastika's tattooed and engage in shank fights with blacks and latinos during shower time. :rolleyes:

Just goes to show where Westminster's priorities lie in relation to actual important issues.