Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Share Links, Become Extradited To the US

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the idle-mice-are-the-devil's-playthings dept.

Crime 244

castrox writes with an in-depth followup to a story we discussed in June: "Sharing links online, particularly links to copyrighted material, may render you extradited to the United States of America. 'In May, American law enforcement officials opened up yet another front in this war by seeking the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer. The 23-year-old British college student is currently working on his BS in interactive media and animation. Until last year, he ran a "link site" that helped users find free movies and TV shows, many of them infringing. American officials want to try him on charges of criminal copyright infringement and conspiracy.' The case is unique because the site, which the accused Englishman ran, was not located in the US in any way. Does this set a new precedent of things to come? The agency responsible for the extradition request is Immigrations and Customs Enforcement."

cancel ×

244 comments

I'm in trouble... (4, Funny)

grub (11606) | about 3 years ago | (#36846034)


If they ever demand extradition for sharing goatse links, I'd be on death row.

Re:I'm in trouble... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846516)

link?

Re:I'm in trouble... (2)

weeboo0104 (644849) | about 3 years ago | (#36846612)

There is a fine line between sharing a link with someone and inflicting it on them.
I'm pretty certain goatse falls on the latter side.

Re:I'm in trouble... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36847040)

Why? Just because you don't particularly like goatse it means no one can like it? Just because someones sexual interests might be more into wide open man's ass doesn't mean it's any more bad than you having silent, "let's just get pregnant and never do this again" sex with your wife under the sheets after dark does not mean it's bad.

By the good common stereotype, you would probably like a link that says "beautiful boobs". When I share a link with you about a fat man licking his tits, why is that any more bad?

Re:I'm in trouble... (0, Offtopic)

camperslo (704715) | about 3 years ago | (#36846864)

And in other news, plans to blow up the recently surveyed miscreant asteroid are moving forward. Since right-hand circularly polarized signals become left hand circularly polarized when reflected, the unauthorized infringing signals sent back to Earth were considered distinct copies. The asteroid has been getting away with this for more than fifty years. Dealing with this has been a long term combined effort of NASA (National Asteriod Surveillance Agency) and MPAA (Mars Punishes Aberrant Asteroids). Some fear that one of the surviving asteroids may someday retaliate and attempt to destroy the Earth.

Although NASA astronauts were very helpful in the installation of additional solar panels on the international space station which would allow more powerful signals to find terrestrial "unauthorized copies in any information retrieval system" (even if organic and encased in a tin-foil hat), the U.S. astronauts mission was ended after it was found they were smuggling copies of recordings in iPods. Those recordings clearly being taken outside the region of license (if there even was a license).
An official was quoted as saying that eventually machine probes alone will be able to do all needed monitoring and enforcement. They also hope to someday nip coping in the bud by traveling back in time.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=22762 [spaceref.com]
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1274 [spaceref.com]
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=22729 [spaceref.com]

Extradited to the U.S. if you're lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846064)

I'd trust those **AA ****s to pay enough bribes to extradite people to international waters or Cuba, or any number of CIA black holes, to perform some 'fraternity pranks'.

Must be the name (1)

SirDice (1548907) | about 3 years ago | (#36846066)

ICE, ICE, Baby... They're almost as bad as that white guy pretending to be a rapper...

Re:Must be the name (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#36846294)

ICE kicks people out of the country, they don't pull people into the country.

This would be the FBI's jurisdiction, because they don't have anything better to do than waste resources on illicit URLs.

Re:Must be the name (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about 3 years ago | (#36846536)

Not so much that they don't have anything better to do, more that they are getting more money to chase copyright bullshit than to deal with real crime because there just isn't as much money in it for their congress critters.

Re:Must be the name (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about 3 years ago | (#36846572)

Actually, Customs enforcement would likely take the lead on this because this covers international trade and IP conventions. They may also have particular expertise in leading these sorts of investigations. And bear in mind that ICE is the agency that is confiscating the domain names as well, so it's not like this is coming out of nowhere.

Don't be be confused by what ICE's most visible tasks are (deporting people), a lot of federal law enforcement agencies have a variety of different tasks associated with them, like the Secret Service also handling counterfeiting because they are technically Treasury Agents. Agencies are often tasked based on whether they have resources and expertise in a certain related field. Also, sometimes the agencies are the result of original agencies that have been broken apart and then reintegrated into patchwork organizations for some other overriding purpose (best example is Homeland Security).

Re:Must be the name (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 3 years ago | (#36846798)

ICE, ICE, Baby...

They're almost as bad as that white guy pretending to be a rapper...

Which one?

Tax dollars (5, Insightful)

cjcela (1539859) | about 3 years ago | (#36846084)

More tax dollars tossed to the trash to protect the interests of a few companies. And the guy was not even posting infringing content. This is getting so out of hand. Way to go, America!

Re:Tax dollars (5, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 years ago | (#36846246)

More tax dollars tossed to the trash to protect the interests of a few companies.

"Intellectual property" is one of the few things that the US produces these days and it employs a large amount of people in a country rife with joblessness. While the RIAA and MPAA are disgusting organizations and there's certainly outright corruption with the industry buying politicians, I wonder if some in the government are pushing for these stringent measures because they think it will save the country.

Re:Tax dollars (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846388)

Wow, a stupid country based on stupid things.

Re:Tax dollars (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846392)

If the guys in charge truly think that it will save the country, then the country is doomed.

Snake, meet tail. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846480)

Makes perfect sense, make it so that half the population is lawyers and the other half is RIAA/MPAA/patent trolls. They can sell and consume each others services

Re:Tax dollars (3, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 3 years ago | (#36846622)

"Intellectual property" is one of the few things that the US produces these days and it employs a large amount of people in a country rife with joblessness.

That's what the lobbyists say. But, of course, it's misleading. There are all sorts of "Intellectual Property" related jobs, the vast majority of which are not affected by file-sharing. The entertainment industries affected are actually quite tiny, and even they are overstating the damage, since they keep having record profits every year!

Re:Tax dollars (2)

xero314 (722674) | about 3 years ago | (#36846664)

"Intellectual property" is one of the few things that the US produces these days and it employs a large amount of people in a country rife with joblessness.

The United States is the world's leading manufacturer [shopfloor.org] of goods.

United states unemployment rate is 9.2, which is lower than that of the European Union, and only 2 points above the world wide unemployement rate.

Just thinking you might what to actually check your facts before making wild allegations.

Re:Tax dollars (2)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 years ago | (#36846822)

The United States is the world's leading manufacturer of goods.

That doesn't necessarily mean that manufacturing is at a point high enough to employ a significant portion of the population in an age of automation.

United states unemployment rate is 9.2

The official figure is widely ridiculed and it fails to take into account certain demographics. Maybe you might want to check your facts before you post?

Re:Tax dollars (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 3 years ago | (#36846958)

employs a large amount of people in a country rife with joblessness

Yes it employes large amounts of law enforcement personnel, politicians, thugs of various kinds, and attorneys. None of whom produce anything of use, but consume vast resources. Perhaps we are so rife with joblessness BECAUSE OF IP>

Re:Tax dollars (1)

rthille (8526) | about 3 years ago | (#36846994)

Further, I wonder how many Slashdotters would change their tune about this if his link farm wasn't to entertainment media, but rather to expensive software developed in the US which added significantly to our GDP & exports...

Extradition is All the Rage! (5, Interesting)

Lance Dearnis (1184983) | about 3 years ago | (#36846108)

First Cisco trying it from Canada, now the MPAA through Britain. An important thing to note through the article is that copyright laws exist in both countries - but that so far, it seems in Britain that link-sharing alone is not as damning as it is in the US. Mainly, it looks like TVShack was much more commercialized than Hotfile, and that's always something that results in a bigger hammer coming down the line. An important thing to note as well is the previous experience British judges have had with copyright litigation - I remember ACS Law and Crossley being torn into, as seen here (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/amounts-to-blackmail-inside-a-p2p-settlement-letter-factory.ars) Really, I don't think he's getting extradited. Britain is markedly hostile to US-style copyright infringement proceedings, and I doubt they failed to figure out where Crossley got his tactics from. Unless if they get someone to play rubber stamp and not examine the case, I'd lay my money on O'Dwyer staying right where he is.

Re:Extradition is All the Rage! (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 years ago | (#36846648)

The UK will extradite anyone on request to the US. It is then up to the unlucky individual to fight it. Unfortunately we consider the US to have a reliable and fair legal system so the granting of extradition is pretty much automatic.

In a way it is actually easier to avoid being extradited if the crime is more serious. If you can show that the crime could carry the death penalty or you might be tortured then you can appeal against the decision. Our human rights laws prevent us from extraditing people to countries where those rights could be violated.

Re:Extradition is All the Rage! (1)

MROD (101561) | about 3 years ago | (#36846782)

Actually, due to a lop-sided treaty Tony Blair got through parliament after 9/11, basically the US can request the extradition of anyone without having to give evidence. The idea behind this was so that "terrorists" could be moved between the two countries without disclosing sensitive intelligence. The original treaty would have been two-way but the US legislature blocked the treaty at the US end. Unfortunately, because the treaty didn't have a clause which meant that it only came into power if both sides ratified it the UK end became binding even though the US end wasn't. Tony Blair stuffed it up again.

Return the favor! (1)

sosume (680416) | about 3 years ago | (#36846818)

I call upon all nations which have extradition treaties with the US, to start requests for extraditing high-profile US citizens for alleged internet crimes. Let's see how long until the US discovers that these kind of policies are not in their interest. At all. I asked this before, how can the US claim international jurisdiction over IP violations? As the Dutch say, arrogance and pride come usually precede a hard fall. The Roman empire all over, it's time to learn Chinese and forget that the USD ever existed.

Princess Leia said it best... (2, Informative)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 3 years ago | (#36846116)

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

I think Zod was closer to the U.S. mentality (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 3 years ago | (#36846908)

You will bow down before us, world! No matter that it takes an eternity!

Re:Princess Leia said it best... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846912)

And relevant to TFA, she said it in a really, really bad English accent that seemed to disappear moments later.

Is time now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846124)

... to blow up the USA?

jurisdiction? (5, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | about 3 years ago | (#36846132)

How does this work? if he broke the law in the UK, he should be tried in the UK. Under what grounds would extradition to the US make sense? he'd have to have committed a crime in US territory, and if the site wasn't there, and he wasn't there, then the answer to this seems pretty clear...
If you want to try him for a crime allegedly committed in the UK, try him in the UK, not the US. And if the UK laws don't allow you to try him in the UK because what he did wasn't a crime there, then too bad for you!

Re:jurisdiction? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846190)

Probably because they're alleging that it's American property being appropriate by his misconduct.

What do you think a country is going to do when they believe their companies are being deprived of their just rewards? Sit and cry? Or negotiate with other governments to deliver offenders into their jurisdiction?

I think they'll pick the latter.

Don't like it? Petition your gov't.

Re:jurisdiction? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846330)

Switzerland so far is the only country with balls enough to give the USA the middle finger.
Remember that Polanski extradition demand, and how the Swiss told the US to go F themselves because the USA wouldn't do all the paperwork?
And recently Bush cancelled a trip to Switzerland because the people there were planning to have him arrested for crimes against humanity.

The rest of the world need to take example on them! But that's probably a lost cause with regards to the UK... The UK is the USA's bitch.
USA: Send us your kids so we can jail them for linking to our music.
UK: OK!

Re:jurisdiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846748)

Polanski is actually a real pedophile though. Not a particularly good example. He is the sort of example of when extradition really should be applied - someone who actually committed a serious crime in the country requesting extradition, unlike the person in this story who probably has never even visited the USA.

Re:jurisdiction? (1)

Lord Juan (1280214) | about 3 years ago | (#36846770)

Amnesty international wanted the government to open an investigation for human rights violations, but the government clearly stated that he was completely immune from prosecution for anything that he did during his presidency. The Swiss government is just as coward as everyone elses.

The trip was canceled because protesters were going to doing armed with Shoes, and his security staff had concerns for his security.

Re:jurisdiction? (1)

Lord Juan (1280214) | about 3 years ago | (#36846788)

were going to assist armed with shoes*

(yes, a reply to myself, I am sorry, clearly my proof-reading skills are somewhat deficient when I am hungry)

Re:jurisdiction? (1)

gnick (1211984) | about 3 years ago | (#36846776)

To be fair, the Swiss arrested Polanski at the US's request and then released him refusing extradition. The French (where he's been living) haven't even gone through the trouble of arresting him and leave him be. So if you want to use Polanski as an example of giving the US the middle finger, I'd say the French are ahead of the Swiss.

On a side note, I'm not a huge fan of the French just based on the handful I've known, but some of their laws, national policies, and public "interest" toward the government are pretty respectable.

Re:jurisdiction? (1)

mcvos (645701) | about 3 years ago | (#36846442)

Since when is it the government's job to defend corporate interests? The companies are perfectly capable of suing or filing charges in the country where the crime has been committed. Extradition for something like this makes jurisdiction a joke.

Suppose I were to smoke pot (which I don't, but it's legal where I live). It's illegal in France, however. Now suppose France requested my extradition for smoking pot in Amsterdam. That's basically what this is about.

Except that in this case, there's corporate interests involved, but that's what civil courts are for.

Re:jurisdiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846524)

Since when? Since the corporations started paying lobbyists. Duh.

But no, this is NOT in any way comparable to you smoking pot. Pot is a given object, with no reason to give jurisdiction in France. You're not even alleging that it's a French company's property. So your analogy fails HARD. It's a nonsensical comparison.

Now if you were to say, make a wine, and claim it was French, or Bordeaux, then France would care, and they would have an interest in doing something about it.

Which, BTW, they have done.

Re:jurisdiction? (1)

gnick (1211984) | about 3 years ago | (#36846830)

This is in no way analogous to smoking pot. This is more like finding somebody who sells pot via mail-order and sharing the phone number with people who live where it's illegal and telling them where to find it. I'm not saying that it's worth trying/extraditing over, just try to be fair when making an analogy - Otherwise the rest of your argument will fall flat.

Re:jurisdiction? (0)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 3 years ago | (#36846284)

He's still going against US law on US soil, just like if your an illegal and get caught for drugs, you do your time and then get sent back to your country, factor in computers, and the law turns 10 shades of grey.

I'm curious as to what would happen if the server got shipped to the United States as evidence.

Re:jurisdiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846382)

How is he going against US law on US soil? He was in the UK and the server was not in the US. This is just getting plain fucking ridiculous. It would be like the UK government trying to prosecute someone in the US for carrying a firearm in the US just because it's not legal in the UK.

Re:jurisdiction? (1)

ag0ny (59629) | about 3 years ago | (#36846488)

No, he's not going against any US law because neither him nor his server(s) are in the US. Period.

Re:jurisdiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846534)

Bollocks. Laws from a county do not apply outside the borders of that country. Therefore, he should be tried in the country from where he operates the website (that being where he resides, assuming that operating the website is illegal in said country). Otherwise, I could, for example, post a derogatory comment against Islam in Slashdot and the Slashdot admin would be extradited to Iran or Saudi Arabia, on charges of allowing blasphemy or whatever.

Re:jurisdiction? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846328)

The article said the theory of jurisdiction is that the US is claiming jurisdiction over all top-level domains based in the us, so all .com, .net, .org, etc.

Re:jurisdiction? (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 3 years ago | (#36846554)

So what happens if they get rid of the TLDs? Could they claim jurisdiction based on the registration point? I personally think it's rather silly to claim jurisdiction over a TLD, but it makes me want them to go away even more.

Re:jurisdiction? (1)

mldi (1598123) | about 3 years ago | (#36847110)

The article said the theory of jurisdiction is that the US is claiming jurisdiction over all top-level domains based in the us, so all .com, .net, .org, etc.

Then let them shut down the domain name. Last I checked, a sign made in the USA that points to the nearest pot store in Amsterdam has nothing at all to do with the pot store itself and is completely irrelevant to laws in the USA.

Re:jurisdiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846796)

trying to build up a precedent for Roman Polanski,
one country at a time.

bs in interactive media and animation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846134)

apparently that translates to linking to other folks work from your website

It's happened before.... (2)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | about 3 years ago | (#36846136)

It all depends on who you can pay off to make a big stink. I remember the Penet remailer incident [wikipedia.org] and Scientology. It was located in Finland but because they were posting Scientology material they soon had their doors busted down. If you're in the U.S. just pay off your congressman (which is an INSANE return on investment), have him to make an issue of it. Problem solved.

Jury Nulification (2, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | about 3 years ago | (#36846158)

Scream it from the mountain tops since it can't even be wispered of in court.

-Rick

The moral of the story: (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#36846160)

ICE's contention is that the site's use of an address within the .net TLD, administered by Verisign and within US jurisdiction, was the grounds on which their jurisdiction was established.

That seems an unnervingly broad criterion for establishing jurisdiction(if the the state tourism board of $PICTURESQE_TROPICAL_COUNTRY buys some ads from ClearChannel, urging people to book vacations, does ICE acquire jurisdiction over them?); but the immediate practical punchline seems to be to Stay. The. Fuck. Away. from American registrars if doing something that pisses off the feds.

I can see that using an American registrar would leave you open to having your domain name(which, effectively, is a 'property' that exists in the US as much as it is anything else) being seized; but leaving you open to extradition seems insane.

This is the America you can expect under Obama (-1, Troll)

Marvin_Runyon (513878) | about 3 years ago | (#36846574)

This is the America you can expect under Obama. His stooge Janet Napalitano is head of the Department of Homeland Security, to which ICE reports, and somehow MPAA/RIAA IP enforcement is now a major factor in "homeland security." Say what you want about Bush, but it was a democrat president that signed the DMCA into law, and a democrat president that is overseeing this warping of homeland security into hunting down all international "pirates".

Re:This is the America you can expect under Obama (4, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | about 3 years ago | (#36846714)

Drawing lines in the sand isn't helping. They are ALL criminally culpable, Democrat and Republican. Getting us to argue amongst ourselves is just one of the ways they distract us from the real issue at hand, the fact that they are working together to fuck us all.

Re:The moral of the story: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846598)

ICE's contention is that the site's use of an address within the .net TLD, administered by Verisign and within US jurisdiction, was the grounds on which their jurisdiction was established.

If that's it, then it might open some exciting opportunities, since DNS registration itself is just a way of referencing. If the "crime" is a function of the site but jurisdiction is a function of who points at the site, then I wonder if they are extraditing him because of the site or the registration.

What I'm getting at is that if example.co.uk violates a US law, and I hate the webmaster over there, can I register example.com, make it resolve to their site, and get my enemy extradited? Or will I who they come for?

Re:The moral of the story: (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 3 years ago | (#36846704)

By the same logic, Slashdot belongs to Geeknet which is a US company, so anyone posting here can be extradited to the US and the comments they posted can and will be used against them in a US court of law. Great.

Re:The moral of the story: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846902)

Well, now do you think it is a good time to replace how DNS works on the Internet? If it gets too bad, you may just have to create a new nation to avoid the horseshit going on.

Re:The moral of the story: (1)

Lord Juan (1280214) | about 3 years ago | (#36846934)

That is why I won't be registering any more .com and .net domains, and I'll move whatever I can to other domains, heck, at this point I don't know how smart is it to use US based services anymore, god forbid I post a link that the MAFIAA doesn't like and not only my website/account in said service is compromised, but my entire life (at the very least I could end up fighting an extradition).

This is beyond ridiculous, and it sets a very very ugly precedent. I know, the chances of that happening to me are very low, but, the fact that this is even allowed to happen is just wrong.

America World Police! (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 3 years ago | (#36846164)

Fuck yea!

Re:America World Police! (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 3 years ago | (#36846914)

Fuck yea!

(Beat me to it!)

Re:America World Police! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36847070)

Fuck yeah!

FTFY

All it proves (2)

HangingChad (677530) | about 3 years ago | (#36846182)

Is that our government has gone completely off the rails of common sense. But, if you lived here, you'd already know that.

Corporate Lobbyists on Steroids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846218)

What is the difference between what he did and what google does?

Re:Corporate Lobbyists on Steroids (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | about 3 years ago | (#36846318)

Google doesn't map some cryptically named zip on rapidshare to the title of the movie it contains. These sites make it very easy to find illegal material and are never used for legit content.

Re:Corporate Lobbyists on Steroids (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 3 years ago | (#36846600)

Never is a strong word. Sites like this also host anime (at the acceptance of the authors) and other programs that would not be available otherwise.

Re:Corporate Lobbyists on Steroids (2)

Lance Dearnis (1184983) | about 3 years ago | (#36846342)

What is the difference between what he did and what google does?

There's a difference here, be fair - Google, for one, doesn't run an index primarily of infringing content. Google's also big enough to be able to fight back directly with big money lawyers as well. And lastly, Google -WAS- sued under this logic once before, in the Viacom-Youtube incident, where Viacom held that Youtube was, essentially, engaging in mass infringement. Actually, on thinking of it, the Viacom-Youtube incident should provide an interesting angle to this - does anyone know if he received, by chance, DMCA takedown requests? That was what threw out Viacom's suit against Google - that they had complied with the DMCA and thus were not liable. I don't see any mention of them here, but I don't know if that means "We didn't bother sending DMCA notifications to a known British National" or "We sent them and they got ignored so nobody cared enough to report them".

Re:Corporate Lobbyists on Steroids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846898)

Unless they were in the US at the time of comitting the alleged infringement, citizens of countries other than the US can use DMCA notifications to wipe their asses (read: they can ignore them), since the DMCA does not apply outside the US. It's therefore completely irrelevant whether they received such notifications or not.

Re:Corporate Lobbyists on Steroids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846346)

Google actively searches for the links. I don't know what the innocent did.

Re:Corporate Lobbyists on Steroids (1)

Lance Dearnis (1184983) | about 3 years ago | (#36846450)

Google actively searches for the links. I don't know what the innocent did.

The active search comparing Video IDs came up after the lawsuit was filed - I assume this is what you mean by an active search. Either way, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that doing this afterwards wouldn't have removed their liability for previous actions, so I think you're safe without some sort of active search going on. Pretty sure that just responding to DMCA takedown requests counted as enough.

Re:Corporate Lobbyists on Steroids (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 3 years ago | (#36846616)

What is the difference between what he did and what google does?

Google, their subsidiaries like YouTube and others of their ilk engage in the generally agreed upon practice of responding to "takedown notices." I'll bet you a ball of cash that this guy received numerous takedown notices, which he no doubt ignored. Now he's in hot water. If he'd responded to the first takedown notice life would have just gone on for everybody.

Re:Corporate Lobbyists on Steroids (1)

green1 (322787) | about 3 years ago | (#36846752)

What takedown notices are legally required to be followed in the UK? Do they have a DMCA with the same provisions as the American one? Remember this was not a US site, was not on US soil, and the person running it was not a US citizen, and not on US soil.

The only REAL difference is that Google has money and lawyers. That's why the **AAs don't go after them.

Re:Corporate Lobbyists on Steroids (2)

mrbester (200927) | about 3 years ago | (#36846816)

In case you didn't realise DCMA takedown notices are irrelevant outside USA and it doesn't matter if thousands were received or not

here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846256)

Cue the knee-jerk reactions about Americans being fat, lazy, idiotic, power-tripping psychotics out to doom the world with their emprire...

As an American I am surprised by this move, but what's the worst that can happen, the British government says "no"?

Still, should have been using a .uk address, would have put it firmly outside of any possibility of American involvement.

Bread and Circuses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846278)

There is a reason that the American politicians are unquestionably supportive of the entertainment cartels, regardless of fallout. They're just looking at the short-term ability to distract from and delay local societal instabilities from tipping over.

The MAFIAA is the largest circus producer they can support.

Re:Bread and Circuses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846576)

That may indeed be so, but the people that would most feel these instabilities don't have any money to afford the content in question, and thus wouldn't be distracted, unless the goal is to sue them all and make everything some form of felony so they effective become unable to vote.

tssss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846326)

So why they dont sue google for share illegal link .... :)

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (1)

chomsky68 (1719996) | about 3 years ago | (#36846356)

Does that mean that if the guy is not extradited and if he ever steps on U.S. soil he is risking being arrested?

Re:Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | about 3 years ago | (#36846560)

That would be my guess. I would also suggest staying away from any country that has caved to the U.S. in the past.

ICE is out of control (3, Insightful)

anti-pop-frustration (814358) | about 3 years ago | (#36846368)

Extra judiciary domain seizures, extradition of foreign citizens for crimes not committed in the US... ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is either corrupt or completely out of control. They must be reigned in.

In the mean time, it's great that they have the situation at the Mexican border under control, gives them more time to be innovative in the war against piracy (keep going guys, you're so close to winning that one).

Re:ICE is out of control (1)

Lord Juan (1280214) | about 3 years ago | (#36847102)

Oh, the ICE is well under control, just not under the control of the american people, but it is under control, and they are very obedient.

This bullshit has to stop. (2)

spidercoz (947220) | about 3 years ago | (#36846406)

The fact that our law enforcement agencies are turning into the Hollywood SS is abominable. These corporate whoremongers have no ethics, no decency, and no shame. Once upon a time people such as these were pilloried for their crimes against the public good. I find it appalling that not only are our own lawmakers bending over for these cunts, but those of foreign countries are as well. Make no mistake, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of true liberty as the multinational corporations siphon more and more power and influence away from the governments of the world. And the saddest part of the whole thing is the people, you know, where the power actually lies, are just lying down and taking it. Rise up, you lazy, apathetic fuckers. Our entire world is being sold out from underneath us while you all just sit there getting fat and flipping channels. Sooner or later you're going to click on something and an hour later jackbooted, for-hire thugs are going to haul you off to copyright concentration camp. Hollywood has become the National Socialist Party and they see everyone who uses the internet as a dirty Jew.

Re:This bullshit has to stop. (2)

green1 (322787) | about 3 years ago | (#36846806)

Hollywood has become the National Socialist Party and they see everyone who uses the internet as a dirty Jew.

I think you need to look up the definition of Socialism.... If Hollywood was socialist the movies would be free for everyone.

Re:This bullshit has to stop. (2)

chomsky68 (1719996) | about 3 years ago | (#36847026)

Hollywood has become the National Socialist Party and they see everyone who uses the internet as a dirty Jew.

I think you need to look up the definition of Socialism.... If Hollywood was socialist the movies would be free for everyone.

and I think you have no idea what is the difference between Socialist and National Socialist

Re:This bullshit has to stop. (1)

spidercoz (947220) | about 3 years ago | (#36847052)

I think you need to read some fucking history, I'm not comparing ideology, I'm comparing behavior and tactics.

Re:This bullshit has to stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36847058)

I think you need to look up the National Socialist Party. Or the Nazis.

Re:This bullshit has to stop. (2)

PessimysticRaven (1864010) | about 3 years ago | (#36847078)

I think you need to look up the definition of Socialism.... If Hollywood was socialist the movies would be free for everyone.

History Lesson #1:

National Socialist Party.
Commonly shortened to NAZI.


Also, for what it's worth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi [wikipedia.org]

Hence, the National Socialist/Jew reference was valid.

The more you know! (DING, RAINBOWS FOR EVERYONE)

Re:This bullshit has to stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846984)

... concentration camp... National Socialist Party ... Jew.

you lose [wikipedia.org]

Re:This bullshit has to stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36847028)

shut the fuck up

The Rise and Fall of the American Empire (1)

J Story (30227) | about 3 years ago | (#36846408)

It is increasingly clear that America is becoming a Police State. Freedoms for which it was once the envy of the world are now being trampled by government enforcers at the behest of corporate interests. When George W. Bush was in office, critics were able to lay these excesses at his feet, but it is now clear that the rot is deeper than that. So what do you do when the World's Policeman is on the take?

Free? (0)

Eevee (535658) | about 3 years ago | (#36846410)

that helped users find free movies and TV shows, many of them infringing

Is that like finding a free bike parked outside, you just needed a pair of bolt cutters to take it?

If it's piracy, call it piracy. We can take it. Don't try to dance around it; having one thing obviously false makes the rest of what you're trying to say look suspect.

Re:Free? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846522)

Nah it's more he was telling people where there was a free bike parked outside.

It was the users that used the bolt cutters. As you say, piracy is piracy... but it's the people with the bolt cutters that commit the crime.

Perhaps an extradition on the premise of "accessory with the assistance of the intention to commit violations against intellectual property rights?"

Re:Free? (1)

Duradin (1261418) | about 3 years ago | (#36846602)

May $DEITY have mercy on your karma. /. dances with the best sort of correct, technically correct. There will always be some flaw, no matter how minor, that someone will find in any analogy that will "justify" their view.

Re:Free? (4, Informative)

green1 (322787) | about 3 years ago | (#36846924)

The article used the correct term, infringement. Piracy is a term that has been co-opted to try to make the act seem worse than it is by equating it to murder and theft on the high seas instead of what it truly is, the unauthorized copying of someone else's published works, an act properly known as copyright infringement.

They aren't "dancing around it", they are one of the very few places actually using the correct term. The only one saying something "obviously false" is you by equating copyright infringement with theft (a completely different act) and criticizing the correct use of the term while suggesting one that is meant more to inflame emotions than to correct identify the act.

Note, I'm not taking a position on what is "right" or "wrong" in relation to copyright, only that the original article used the correct term, without comparing it to something completely unrelated.

How's all that Hope and Change working out for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846428)

Seriously, in what way has the Obama Administration's approach to copyright enforcement been an improvement over the Bush Administration's? Give examples.

As this example shows, and think the Obama Administration has been objectively worse.

Free travel to the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846590)

All I have to do to take an all-expenses-paid vacation to the US is run a file-sharing website? Done!

Soon (1)

drolli (522659) | about 3 years ago | (#36846620)

Directly besides the "do you plan to overthrow the US government" question in the visa application there will be a "did you take part in file sharing" question.

A perfectly reasonable question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846734)

How long until the public have seen this shit through, enough so that they are willing to take it to the streets?

Allah can go fuck himself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36846952)

So what happens if, as a US citizen, posting from the United States, I break Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia?

Once again /. summary and TFA vary... (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 3 years ago | (#36847006)

He wasn't just running a "link site," he was actively profiting from providing links to material - which no doubt puts him into the criminal copyright violation realm. When his site was seized, he reopened under a new name and registrar.

Since he used a US registrar that provided a way to argue he is subject to US laws. You can disagree with that, but that looks like what has happened.

He didn't help himself by sticking a finger in ICE's eye by reopening under a new name. Sometimes the smart thing to do is go to ground and hope your oo small to be worth the trouble to prosecute.

It's not about copyright - it's the NWO (3, Insightful)

1800maxim (702377) | about 3 years ago | (#36847064)

We keep reading about how crazed the USA has become with its DMCA, now the Homeland Security taking down domains, and ICE strongarming in areas where it would seem it should have no jurisdiction or business.

The reason is that it's very convenient for the government to have extremely powerful accusatory tactics and means of getting to and punishing people. You keep complaining, asking why RIAA/MPAA has so much power, but it's simply because it's convenient for the gov't for this seemingly private entity to exercise such power.

Under the guise of anything, the gov't can search your homes without a warrant, can pull over and fingerprint you/iris scan you, can confiscate your electronic equipment, etc, etc... without due process.

All these organizations and laws (DMCA, PROTECT IP) are simply a tool, a back-door way into your homes and private lives.

Once you understand that, you'll also understand why such organizations have such tremendous power. It's one and the same - they work in a symbiotic relationship with the gov't, which is working toward complete control.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...