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!

Jimmy Wales Calls UK Government To Halt O'Dwyer Extradition

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the keeping-it-in-house dept.

Censorship 94

judgecorp writes "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has called on the UK government to stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer. O'Dwyer was accused of infringing copyright with his site TVShack, but charges were dismissed in the UK. Wales has set up a petition and calls this the start of a new 'Internet war' following the successful opposition to SOPA earlier this year."

cancel ×

94 comments

All your legal system are belong to U.S. (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40438907)

Silly Jimmy. Don't you know that U.S. law *is* international law?

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#40438949)

I'm not sure I like Wikipedia getting involved in politics like this. I tolerated SOPA, but this is a bit different.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40438993)

Said politics can directly affect their website if it happens.

It turns links in to lethal weapons that can destroy anyone.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (1)

Loughla (2531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439021)

At which point they are no better than the giant corporations/media conglomerates they once sought to replace.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439827)

At which point they are no better than the giant corporations/media conglomerates they once sought to replace.

I'm not sure Wikipedia ever sought to replace giant corporations/media conglomerates. That might be a practical effect in some edge cases (and even there, very iffy - I don't think even Britannica counts as a giant corporation/media conglomerate and anyone they've 'replaced' is probably smaller) but I don't think it was ever a goal.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40440723)

It's well known that the Wikipedia is heavily supported by Google. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/brin-and-wojcicki-give-500000-to-charity-behind-wikipedia/ [nytimes.com] People tend to want to please the folks that give them money, especially big billion dollar corporations.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (5, Insightful)

beltsbear (2489652) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439017)

It is not Wikipedia getting involved, it is Jimmy Wales. There is no action being done by Wikipedia. I do not think Wikipedia should get involved in this one either but have no problem with Jimmy Wales (even as the head of Wikipedia) doing so, as long ask Wikipedia is not used in the process. The Sopa protest made sense as it effected Wikipedia directly.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439163)

Fwiw, Wales isn't "the head of Wikipedia" anymore either. He remains one of the 10 members of the Board of Trustees [wikimediafoundation.org] in a special member-for-life seat, but he no longer runs the organization day-to-day (the staff [wikimediafoundation.org] do that), and has no specific authority to make decisions, except via his vote on the Board.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439603)

So who then shows his face begging for donations every few months?

He has more influence than you care to think.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439735)

President Clinton shows his face asking for donations, and does a lot of charity work internationally. However, he's no longer the President; while he has a certain amount of influence because of his former position, he no longer has any real power within the US government.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (1)

MattBecker82 (1686358) | about 2 years ago | (#40451063)

He probably has a decent amount of influence via his wife, who holds one of the most senior government positions.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#40451121)

Ok, maybe I should have said President Carter. He's also heavily involved in a lot of charity and international work.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439819)

It's actually been A/B tested, and continues to be used mainly because it converts the best. There were some experiments this year in rotating in more faces of other Wikipedians, to emphasize the breadth of contributors, but Wales's face still statistically converted best, so it was kept in heavy rotation.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441055)

It's actually been A/B tested, and continues to be used mainly because it converts the best. There were some experiments this year in rotating in more faces of other Wikipedians, to emphasize the breadth of contributors, but Wales's face still statistically converted best, so it was kept in heavy rotation.
What about the young girl w/ the purple scarf? I haven't seen that one in a while. I would imagine she tested quite positively as well.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439439)

The Sopa protest made sense as it effected Wikipedia directly.

AFFECTED.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40444495)

You mean it wasn't the Sopa protest that caused someone to start Wikipedia?

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (1)

Crasoose (1621969) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439493)

It's probably more along the line of him making this decision as a UK Government Advisor [slashdot.org] if he ever received that position. I don't think Wikipedia has anything at all to do with this.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40440529)

He needs some way to stay relevant.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40440589)

I agree. The guy is a pirate. It would be best if the Wikipedia took a neutral stance on political things just like it does on political articles.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40465037)

Since when did Jimmy Wales == Wikipedia? Wikipedia _isn't_ taking a stance on the issue.

Re:All your legal system are belong to U.S. (2)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439091)

It's a terrible state of affairs when this is more true than not. Unfortunately, the only part of American law that is internationalized are the parts that benefit the corporations...

Oh boy! (5, Funny)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40438927)

Finally, a new banner for Wikipedia!!

Re:Oh boy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439433)

"Please read the following message from our founder Jimmy Wales: We need your money to halt the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer"

Meh, not that different from the usual banner.

Extradition? WTF? (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439181)

So, A UK citizen is cleared of breaking any UK laws, yet he still 'faces extradition' to another country, one he's not a citizen of and has probably never even been to, who claims he broke their laws? How the fuck does that even get considered? If I, an American citizen, set up a website that was perfectly legal in my country but criminal in, say, Swaziland, would the US government honor an extradition request for my ass? I highly doubt it.

That's the definition of ri-goddamn-diculous.

Don't take this shit, UK - tell my government (and, by extension, the MAFIAA) to piss up a fucking rope. You are a sovereign nation, act like one.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439365)

You must be new here. US law (well, the part of it written for the corporations that own the US government, anyway) is now the law for the entire world.

Try to keep up, 'kay?

Re:Extradition? WTF? (4, Informative)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439415)

Blame Tony B.Liar. He had his tongue so far up Dubya's ass that he willingly signed one of the most lopsided extradition treaties not backed up by the threat of millitary force ever.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439491)

Blame Tony B.Liar. He had his tongue so far up Dubya's ass that he willingly signed one of the most lopsided extradition treaties not backed up by the threat of millitary force ever.

Personally, I'm a bit surprised that assbag didn't apply for statehood...

Re:Extradition? WTF? (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439657)

"Prime Minister of (nominally) independent and sovereign nation" gets more action than "governor of newest state". If you know what I mean.

Besides, Liz woulda pitched a fit.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

highphilosopher (1976698) | more than 2 years ago | (#40440159)

You've never heard of a fiberglass axe handle? We're past that proverb now :)

Re:Extradition? WTF? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40441455)

The good people of the UK are getting what they deserve. Blair, despite pushing this odious treaty, was re-elected in 2005. People seemed to have few concerns with Blair dragging the UK blindly in to war, and to the encouragement of sectarian schooling as a means of encouraging an inclusive society. Blair was a fucking nut job who did a rather good job of covering up his muddled yet pervasive religious beliefs until he left office. He also neglected to mention his financial interests in Iraq, and has been making tidy sums ever since fucking around in the Middle East.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 years ago | (#40444289)

Blair, despite pushing this odious treaty, was re-elected in 2005.

By 22% of the population, and without even winning the popular vote in England. He was re-elected only because our electoral system is about as democratic as the military leadership in Egypt right now.

Short of violent revolution, it's going to take time to fix that, but we're working on it on several fronts already.

People seemed to have few concerns with Blair dragging the UK blindly in to war

Aside from literally millions of people taking to the streets in the biggest protest by the British public in living memory, you mean?

Blair had plenty of faults, but if you're going to have a dig, kindly don't imply that most of the "good people of the UK" supported him. It simply isn't true.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40442499)

Actually the treaty isn't too bad, it is the implementation. UK judges follow the legal procedures when making decisions, US judges have a lot more latitude to make decisions it seems. In all probability many of their decisions could be challenged, but of course that means going to the US to do it. So basically a UK citizen being extradited to the US is fucked.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 years ago | (#40446071)

The crazy UK extradition extends beyond the US to many other other countries. What the purpose was of such a ludicrous extradition one way extradition treaty where basically any request and pretty much any poor person is immediately handed over, leaving it to the government of the day being the only body that can limit extradition.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439509)

due to the borderless nature of the internet, what this guy does in the UK most certainly has an impact on the media business in the USA

this is not a statement in support of this bullshit extradition, this is to point out how utterly fucked american IP law is in the modern world, eventually

because you would have to constantly extradite citizens of other countries to the USA to continue the existence of this rent seeking parasitical media business

obviously, the idea that you are extraditing people from other countries for this "horrible crime" should rise to the level of such moral stink that there is no way this can continue... were it not for the media corporations greasing the palms of enough legislative whores and executive enforcement goons

i'm not one to give up the game so easily, as some cynical cowards are when it comes to the wholesale purchase of our government by corporations. no, the game is not over. yes, you can defeat the corruption of our government: with enough people caring and not just throwing up their hands at news like this

we the people still matter, so let us fight the good fight and raise the proper moral stink our corrupt, compromised conflicted government cannot

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439631)

due to the borderless nature of the internet, what this guy does in the UK most certainly has an impact on the media business in the USA

And the reality of the situation is that when you rip off powerful people, it doesn't matter what country you're in at the time.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439913)

due to the borderless nature of the internet, what this guy does in the UK most certainly has an impact on the media business in the USA

And the reality of the situation is that when powerful people think that you have ripped them off, it doesn't matter what country you're in at the time.

FTFY.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40443849)

Where rip off is defined as failure to surrender all your money upon request.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (5, Funny)

Chewbacon (797801) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439685)

Sounds like a good plan for people in starving nations. Just need the means to setup an infringing website and boom! 3 hots and a cot, education, conjugal visits. America, fuck yeah!

Only affects you because you let it (2)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40443465)

due to the borderless nature of the internet, what this guy does in the UK most certainly has an impact on the media business in the USA

True but only because the US lets people in the UK connect to its network. If you don't like what people in the UK can do legally in our own country then you are free to refuse all network traffic from the UK. If you choose to accept it then you have to accept the consequences too. It's entirely your decision which you are free to make as you wish as a sovereign nation. The only time extradition should be allowed is when the crime was committed while the culprit was on US soil and then fled to try and avoid US justice - it doesn't matter what the crime is copyright, murder, speeding etc.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439639)

Yeah, the best part? no one fucking cares about it here either! it's so unreal, nation of sheep the UK is. Rule Britannia? more like Rule Banana.

Next will be us sending people to stand trial in China, don't think it won't happen, IT WILL. and noone will care about it sadly.

 

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441819)

Ah, poor Noone. He is much burdened with worldly cares.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40442679)

Your point being?

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439799)

Usual Slashdot BS. He wasn't cleared.

You can't be extradited from the UK for an act that is legal in the UK. O'Dwyers actions might be illegal in the UK. The extradition judge decided they were, but the point has never been tested in a criminal trial.

I think it should be tested in the UK and that's why the extradition is bullshit.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40440209)

IF the act hasn't been tested, then it's legal by default.

Therefore apparently you can be extradited for something that is not illegal in your resident country.

Also ask Mr Assange what he thinks of your opinion - as we definitely don't have any laws regarding condoms in the UK, but he's still facing imminent extradition, if they can dig him out of the embassy that is :P

Re:Extradition? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40442495)

My mistake. You can't be extradited outside the EU for something that's legal in the UK. I forgot the EU arrest warrant.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40446121)

Mr Assange allegedly committed a crime while in Sweden. O'Dwyer wasn't in the US when he allegedly broke US laws.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441315)

The UK signed a rather ridiculous extradition treaty that allows these shenanigans. Why I have no idea, but it shouldn't be surprising that people get hauled up on it.

Brits, it IS your country. Man up and start running it like a real one, not the butt-boy of the USA.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441549)

The UK signed a rather ridiculous extradition treaty that allows these shenanigans.

Damn, and I thought our government hated us...

In other words, to be a British citizen, you have to know and obey the laws not only of your own nation, but any and every nation that your government decides to make back-room deals with... wonderful.

And to think, 10 years ago talking about the plan for a one-world government was enough to garner a person 'tin-foil hat crazy' status...

Re:Extradition? WTF? (2)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 2 years ago | (#40442297)

> Brits, it IS your country. Man up and start running it like a real one, not the butt-boy of the USA.

How are people supposed to change stuff without being able to directly vote on it? Like with copyright, big parties can simply agree on extradition and effectively shield it from any democracy, since nobody is going to form a new party just to fight this one single extradition law.

Without direct democracy, parties can simply win elections on "big issues" and completely and utterly disregard the will of the people on such "small issues".

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 2 years ago | (#40444453)

Without direct democracy, parties can simply win elections on "big issues" and completely and utterly disregard the will of the people on such "small issues".

</thread>

That is the basic flaw with the political system in many (most? all?) of the major Western powers today.

There are a number of reasonable ways of fixing this problem, or at least dramatically improving the situation, but of course it is not in the interests of most people in power to promote those alternative approaches. Thus the vicious cycle will continue until either we accidentally elect someone with a conscience or something happens that brings down the whole system for whatever reason, in which case how to do things in future becomes an active choice rather than something where most people lack the inclination or awareness to demand anything other than the status quo.

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40445165)

>How are people supposed to change stuff without being able to directly vote on it?

Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi got the Brits out of India without casting a single vote.

Surely you remember something about that?

Re:Extradition? WTF? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40443797)

The laws in most jurisdictions are already sufficiently complex and numerous that individuals can barely manage to comply with all of the ones that might be enforced. Add in the additional and sometimes conflicting laws involved ibn every jurisdiction one might incidentally contact through the net and it becomes literally impossible not to violate some of them.

The simple enough solution is that individuals are only responsible for obeying the laws of the jurisdiction they are bodily occupying at the time.

I need reading glasses (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439225)

Whew. I read that as "O'Dwyer execution" .

Re:I need reading glasses (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439767)

If the Corporations get their way, pretty soon that's exactly what'll be happening to anyone that infringes on their "IP".

Re:I need reading glasses (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40443981)

Considering that the fines they levy typically equate to more than double average lifetime earnings, [wikipedia.org] is there really all that much difference?

worrying use of extraditionb laws (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439231)

Traditionally, extradition laws were clear. You kill someone, flee the country and that country asks for you to be returned. As long as what you did is a crime in both jurisdictions, you get returned. Slightly more complicated: you stand near the border and shoot someone across the border; here, I think, most people would agree with extradition, even though you weren't in the target country when the crime was committed.

Now what we have is , someone not resident in country X, sets up a web site not hosted in country X, but because some users access it from country X, country X has the right to extradite you, even if the country you reside in doesn't think a crime has been committed. So, should a US-hosted site that (amongst other things) sells Nazi memorabilia, have its operators extradited to Germany? Etc.

Re:worrying use of extraditionb laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439777)

So, should a US-hosted site that (amongst other things) sells Nazi memorabilia, have its operators extradited to Germany? Etc.

That is the ultimate endgame. if this audacity continues

Born and bred US citizens that have never left their country are suddenly going through extredition to China for mentioning Tiananmen Square's 'Tank Man'

Not good.

Re:worrying use of extraditionb laws (1)

Jesus_C_of_Nazareth (2629713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441201)

My son, I doubt very much that this would happen. The State Department sees extradition as an almost one-way-street. It seems pretty unlikely that we'd be seeing white American teenagers being handed over to strange foreign barbarians for copyright violations. Granted it's possible for more serious crimes. Most extraditions are for non-nationals and typically for something more serious than running a website linking to copyrighted materials. Can anyone seriously in envisage a white American being extradited to the UK for illegally hosting BBC shows, even if they're rolling in the shekels?

The US gets a particularly easy ride with the UK, and less so with most other European countries. Blair, despite claiming to be one of my followers, has perhaps picked up one of those mis-printed Bibles containing the phrase "rend unto the United States State Department that which is not theirs." Trust me on this, if there was a Hell (you really think an all loving Me would even consider creating such a place?), Blair would have long ago earned himself a VIP pass to an eternity of pitch forks and Celine Dion soundtracks.

Re:worrying use of extraditionb laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40442881)

Trust me, it will happen, lookup the new world order. It's not a question of if but when

Re:worrying use of extraditionb laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40452895)

Born and bred US citizens that have never left their country are suddenly going through extredition to China for mentioning Tiananmen Square's 'Tank Man'

Can you read? The post you replied to said, "As long as what you did is a crime in both jurisdictions, you get returned." Read it slowly if you don't understand why your point is stupid.

Re:worrying use of extraditionb laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40513619)

I have read it, and your point is moot, cos you don't understand how the extradition process is not only one sided, but it means you CAN be sent to the USA by default irrespective of wherever it is or not a crime in your country. Go learn some facts before calling others.

Re:worrying use of extraditionb laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525705)

As a Brit I can actually agree with this, the poster above you must be a dumb american. they typically post on matters they fail to comprehend.

Re:worrying use of extraditionb laws (1)

Kam Solusar (974711) | more than 2 years ago | (#40440967)

So, should a US-hosted site that (amongst other things) sells Nazi memorabilia, have its operators extradited to Germany? Etc.

I think we already have enough problems with (Neo-)Nazis and right-wing extremists as is in Germany. I don't think German law enforcement agencies are too keen on importing even more of them from other countries...

Re:worrying use of extraditionb laws (1)

yacc143 (975862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441911)

Well, actually they are, so they can stop their crimes from being continued, and throw these guys into prison for a couple of years.

Re:worrying use of extraditionb laws (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40444025)

Problem is, in the USA being a Nazi isn't a crime; as much as it pains me to say this, that's a Good Thing.

Re:worrying use of extraditionb laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40525695)

That doesn't matter, if your country signed a one way extradition with Germany, goodbye.

Re: standing near the border and shooting (1)

neonsignal (890658) | about 2 years ago | (#40447787)

Reminds me of an interesting case in the 1970s in Australia. Edward Ward shot a fisherman on the Murray riverbank near Echuca, and the body ended up half in the water. He was found guilty of murder in Victoria. But because the boundary wasn't well defined (the river itself belonged to NSW), there was a drawn out legal battle that eventually ended up in the High Court having to define the boundary more precisely. Ward didn't get a reprieve though, because he was retried in NSW and still got life imprisonment.

john perry barlow quote (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40439315)

"The DeCSS case is almost certainly a harbinger of what I would consider to be the defining battle of censorship in cyberspace. In my opinion, this will not be fought over pornography, neo-Nazism, bomb design, blasphemy, or political dissent. Instead, the Armageddon of digital control, the real death match between the Party of the Past and Party of the Future, will be fought over copyright."

John Perry Barlow, http://www.isoc.org/oti/articles/1000/barlow.html

Re:john perry barlow quote (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439531)

This battle has been brewing since the United States was created. The constitution itself establishes both copyright and freedom of speech, two incompatible propositions.

Re:john perry barlow quote (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439593)

Freedom of speech et al were never absolutes (or at least not for a very long time). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger [wikipedia.org]

Re:john perry barlow quote (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439809)

Neither is copyright an absolute. It exists for a specific purpose [pddoc.com] . Applications of copyright that do not advance that purpose are not permitted by the constitution. Since copyright is now mainly used as an impediment to the progress of science and the useful arts, it should be abolished.

on the other hand.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40440193)

How is O'Dwyer helping "progress of science and the useful arts" ?

I think the extradition is silly on the grounds that he's not hosting the contents himself, however, let's suppose he was hosting them at his computer in the UK, would /.'ers also scream bloody murder? The choir would change to "freedom of speech and expression." But you know what? He's disseminating sitcoms and movies. When's the last time Hollywood or the entertainment industry saved a life or progressed science? At most all it has done is inspire us normal folks (thanks to Gene Roddernberry, Arthur C. Clarke, et al), but at the end of the day it's just *entertainment*. To pursue entertainment as a *right*, in my opinion, is a shame. And to extrapolate that as a way of government censorship, you need to seriously take off your tin foil hat.

As for the extradition itself; if theft was actually committed by O'Dwyer (which he has not), then extradition should be available even if the UK clears him/her of wrongdoing because of an absence of the property owner in the UK. Or, just because it's not in the UK law books, it doesn't mean the property owner cannot pursue such individual for wrongdoing in their home country where the crime took place.

It's not "ri-goddamn-diculous." Murderers have escaped to France, pedophiles to Poland, etc. Just because they're in another country doesn't mean they can escape justice.

And again, this O'Dwyer case is a silly witch hunt. I'm more annoyed by the ./'ers ignorance.

Re:on the other hand.. (1)

yacc143 (975862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441887)

Well, in most civilized places citizenship implies protection from extradition.

And you cannot really commit a crime in country X if you are not there.

Re:on the other hand.. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#40444257)

He's disseminating sitcoms and movies.

No, he's not - he's providing a space for other people to aggregate links to other locations which disseminate sitcoms and movies. There's a galaxy of difference.

It's not "ri-goddamn-diculous." Murderers have escaped to France, pedophiles to Poland, etc. Just because they're in another country doesn't mean they can escape justice.

If you honestly believe running a website is tantamount to murder and raping children, you must be one of those MAFIAA pudwhacks. It's the only reasonable explanation.

And again, this O'Dwyer case is a silly witch hunt. I'm more annoyed by the ./'ers ignorance.

Yea, you know what annoys me? People who come to Slashdot not to contribute to the discussion, but purely for the sake of bitching about what other people say on Slashdot. You're quite welcome to fuck off and save yourself the annoyance, I'm sure the rest of us will get along just fine without you.

Re:john perry barlow quote (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40440185)

Under the clear and present danger rule, complaining about the copyright lobby might actually get your ass thrown in jail for a very long time,

Re:john perry barlow quote (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441435)

Freedom of speech et al were never absolutes (or at least not for a very long time). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger [wikipedia.org]

"Everyone knows the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, when asked for an actual example of when it would be proper to limit speech or define it as an action, gave that of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre." -- Christopher Hitchens [youtube.com] .

Re:john perry barlow quote (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441387)

"Everyone knows the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, when asked for an actual example of when it would be proper to limit speech or define it as an action, gave that of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre." -- Christopher Hitchens [youtube.com] .

Oops. Replied to wrong post. (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441457)

This was meant as a reply to LordLimecat. Sorry.

That darn headshot (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40439423)

Did he put his picture on top of the letter with a big H2 headline "And appeal from Jimmy Wales"?

Re:That darn headshot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40441309)

Mod up! This is truly an original joke that other posters have not already been making at least 30 minutes before MickyTheAptlyNamed came along.

I object, your honor (4, Interesting)

TheNucleon (865817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441197)

It's unbelievable. I object to this crap on so many different levels:

First, nations have little control over the laws in other nations. The UK, for instance, has scant control over the insane copyright laws in the US. But they are considering extraditing one of their citizens to the US for allegedly breaking those laws. What if some other country makes it illegal to look at an image of a woman with an uncovered face? Will the US extradite me to that nation for breaking their "laws"? Where does it end?

Second, it's old news that copyright and patent laws in the US have long strayed past their constitutional purpose. In fact, at this point, it's well established that the laws actually act counter to, rather than in support of, the intent of Article 1, section 8. How much longer will we blindly assent to this?

Lastly, we are in a bad economy, and the government is flailing for resources. Especially in that situation, I don't want them spending my tax dollars to extradite and prosecute someone for breaking stupid laws on behalf of tainted, greedy and evil corporations. There are much better ways to use our Justice Dept. monies.

Really, stop the madness. It's gotten so bad I don't even know where to begin working to make it better. I suppose a donation to the EFF is a good start.

Re:I object, your honor (1)

Jesus_C_of_Nazareth (2629713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40442737)

First, nations have little control over the laws in other nations.

In theory, my son. The United States has demonstrated a fond willingness for using carrots and sticks to influence the decisions of foreign governments that should pay more attention to those they are elected to represent. The US isn't by any strength the only country playing this game. Look at China's involvement in Africa. For the US though, a country claiming liberty and freedom as their defining characteristics, it's a little less excusable than Beijing doing business with some truly odious regimes. The shining city on the hill is a home to tyrants unafraid to use state funds to prop-up business interests to the detriment of the electorate.

Re:I object, your honor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40447361)

Lastly, we are in a bad economy, and the government is flailing for resources..

WE should lobby the Governments to enforce the public domain of all (c) works after 6 Years. The Government then acts as a Public holder providing a small fee for making available for download. The small fee covers Storage costs and a set and fixed "REVENUE" for the Government.

Governments round the world would make a mint using this model. The people would win by having affordable access to archived PD material.

Re:I object, your honor (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#40524935)

First, nations have little control over the laws in other nations.

That would be if all countries would be equal. Some countries, however, are more equal then others.

tvshack ? (2)

lophophore (4087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441467)

Apparently all he did was put up a web site that had a collections of links to pirated content apparently owned by American companies.

This is quite a bit different than actually hosting the content.

IANAL, but I don't believe the copyright infringement claims will be proven, and I doubt O'Dwyer will be convicted.

I think this is being done as a strategic prosecution, the DOJ will not prevail; but O'Dwyer will be forced into an expensive and life-changing defense to make an example of him, which is wrong.

I also think he will be extradited to the US, there's a small matter of international treaty involved here.

Concerned Americans would be better served by protesting the prosecution of O'Dwyer rather than the extradition.

Extradition? (1)

yacc143 (975862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40441855)

Sorry for the language but what lobotomized slime ball signed into existence an environment where European citizens (actually UK citizen) can face extradition to the US?

I understand the EU makes this a little bit awkward, hence extradition inside the EU (and even there one of the requirements is that the crime exists in similar ways in both countries). But the normal thing has been always to keep your own citizen, and if the crime warrants the citizen is prosecuted at home. Neither Germany, nor Austria for example allow extradition of their own citizens, nor if the death penalty is a possibility. In both cases it's part of the constitution.

Re:Extradition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40442649)

Tony Blair and his rabble are the slimeballs in question. It was during the era in which Blair thought that it was in the UK's best interests to give Bush anything he wanted. There's some hope that Cameron will undo some of the damage Blair inflicted upon the country, albeit at a very slow pace if at all. The treat should never have been signed in the first fucking place. What I find odd is that the US took three fucking years to ratify the treaty. If I were an authoritarian bully of a country I'd have signed that before the British ink had even dried.

Re:Extradition? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#40444311)

There's some hope that Cameron will undo some of the damage Blair inflicted upon the country, albeit at a very slow pace if at all.

Yea, that's what we were thinking when we elected Obama...


TL;DR

Re:Extradition? (1)

outsider007 (115534) | about 2 years ago | (#40525267)

I was thinking he'd be good in an alien invasion.

Re:Extradition? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#40527067)

I was thinking he'd be good in an alien invasion.

Nah; gotta be either Morgan Freeman or Bill Paxton

Otherwise, we are screwed, man.

Petition no-no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40442413)

You can have my name, my city, province, and country, even my (spam-dedicated) e-mail address, and I'll definitely give a reason why I think the extradition is bullshit, but you're not getting my home address or postal code for a bloody Internet petition. Try again Jimmy Wales.

Pop quiz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40442815)

In the past 10 years, how many American nationals have been extradited to the UK or any other EU member state? For bonus points, how many of those were for non-violent crimes unrelated to terrorism?

UNACCEPTABLE in a free country (1)

Peter Harris (98662) | about 2 years ago | (#40444827)

***
You cannot protect or increase the freedoms of your citizens if you make them subject to the laws of a less free country.
***

And yes, I think it is legitimate for the people of a democracy to expect their elected representatives to defend *and increase* the freedoms of the people.

It is also legitimate to punish them when they do not.
I will be voting for Scottish independence in 2014, not because of any economic or national pride bullshit, but because I think the UK as an institution has for a long time been a danger to and an enemy of liberty, and it has earned a constitutional death sentence.

Get rid of all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40460517)

Wow. So the UK are going to extradit somebody again? If they continue like this, there will soon be plenty of place on this island. Glad I am not british.

Check for New 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...