Student Loses US Extradition Battle Over Copyright Infringement

So let me get this right.
He has a website that told people where to find pirated movies yet he pirated none and he hosted none? Something that could be found with Google search?
Fuck all! They need to sue College essays.com, sue Cliffnotes, sue the public fucking library.
 
So it's okay for Google, Yahoo or Microsoft to be protected by the safe harbour provision of the DMCA, but it's not okay for a "citizen"? I'd love to see the U.S. government try to take on Google or Microsoft in a case like this. After all, they provide links to copyrighted material on their sites. The U.S. congress has the best politicians money can buy and the whole world knows it.
 
I'm not in favor of this but the real problem was that he was earning (a lot) of money from it and, the site got taken down and he replaced it, and with a defiant message.

Receiving money from piracy related activities is just giving the authorities an excuse to bust your balls.
 
Does the U.S. have agreements like this with other countries? Like if you watched porn, could you be extradited for trial in Saudi Arabia?
 
Don't blame US for asking for his extradition,blame UK for sending its own citizen to be prosecuted to US.I'm wondering if Polansky goes to UK would he be extradite to US?
 
All this copyright bullshit is just getting WAY out of hand. This is ridiculous.

It pisses me off that actual serious crimes like murder and rape usually get put on the sidelines, then copyright bullshit they go all apeshit over.
 
This is the future we are heading towards. The US will become the biggest police state in the world, if it hasn't already.
 
Eventually, they'll just skip the courts and send a squad of men in sunglasses to toss a burlap sack over your head and whisk you to Guantanamo Bay.
 
BladeVenom said:
:rolleyes: Semantics.

Ok, we do however have an extradition treaty with Thailand.

If you say something that offends the king of Thailand, in violation of Thai laws, should you be sent to Thailand to answer to their laws?
Click to expand...

Well considering that just happened and the man was convicted I think you should probably rethink your argument.
 
Red Squirrel said:
All this copyright bullshit is just getting WAY out of hand. This is ridiculous.

It pisses me off that actual serious crimes like murder and rape usually get put on the sidelines, then copyright bullshit they go all apeshit over.
Click to expand...

Theres no money or example to be made in those cases.
 
nissanztt90 said:
Theres no money or example to be made in those cases.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the whole copyright issue is driven by corporate interests. But those corporate interests are the interests of millions of people. I'm not a Mitt Romney fan but he's absolutely right, corporations are people.
 
Red Squirrel said:
All this copyright bullshit is just getting WAY out of hand. This is ridiculous.

It pisses me off that actual serious crimes like murder and rape usually get put on the sidelines, then copyright bullshit they go all apeshit over.
Click to expand...

Protecting corporate interest seems to be the highest priority task of the government these days. To hell with the rest of the country.
 
heatlesssun said:
Indeed, the whole copyright issue is driven by corporate interests. But those corporate interests are the interests of millions of people. I'm not a Mitt Romney fan but he's absolutely right, corporations are people.
Click to expand...

wat?

Corportations are made up of people and corporate interests, but people do not represent corporate interests.
 
heatlesssun said:
Indeed, the whole copyright issue is driven by corporate interests. But those corporate interests are the interests of millions of people. I'm not a Mitt Romney fan but he's absolutely right, corporations are people.
Click to expand...
A pyramid scheme should not be considered a person.

Especially when they have none of the risks of a person (can't go to prison, can't get the death penalty, can't have your entire livelihood ruined for hearing an unlicensed song, etc.)
 
Hornet said:
Protecting corporate interest seems to be the highest priority task of the government these days. To hell with the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. I'm a left leaning moderate but it's take a look around your life and look at just how much of your life is tied to private, for profit corporate interests. I work for a huge corporations. I borrow money for huge corporations. My computers are made by corporation. My house was built by a corporation. And if I get sick I will go to a corporate hospital.

I simply can't stop laughing at the right these days over big bad government because we live in a world ruled by large, private and for profit corporate interests that have control over the life of humanity is ways that not even the most oppressive governments in history have every had. Look at the computing device right in front of you, it was made by a corporation that has the power to do things to people that no government has ever dreamed of.
 
I don't feel that bad for someone that made so much money promoting piracy. I am not a fan of suing or arresting people who pirate material, but those that profit from the piracy are another story.
 
heatlesssun said:
Yes it is. I'm a left leaning moderate but it's take a look around your life and look at just how much of your life is tied to private, for profit corporate interests. I work for a huge corporations. I borrow money for huge corporations. My computers are made by corporation. My house was built by a corporation. And if I get sick I will go to a corporate hospital.

I simply can't stop laughing at the right these days over big bad government because we live in a world ruled by large, private and for profit corporate interests that have control over the life of humanity is ways that not even the most oppressive governments in history have every had. Look at the computing device right in front of you, it was made by a corporation that has the power to do things to people that no government has ever dreamed of.
Click to expand...

And what about how all these wonderful corporations are destroying the economy that built them by outsourcing the jobs that made them what they were? The bubble will burst.
 
nissanztt90 said:
Theres no money or example to be made in those cases.
Click to expand...

That's what pisses me off, it's all about money. That's all the government cares about. Traditionally a government is suppose to be there for the people, but that concept is long gone.
 
nissanztt90 said:
And what about how all these wonderful corporations are destroying the economy that built them by outsourcing the jobs that made them what they were? The bubble will burst.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Corporate power in the West and other capitalistic nations far exceeds that of those governments. People who want to blame the housing meltdown in the US government I consider idiots. Yes, government had a big role to play in that disaster but at the end of the day what caused it was large financial institutions, i.e. big corporate interests trying to make amounts of money that simply don't exist. It was a corporate Ponzi scheme that took advantage of the poor, paid off those that could have prevented it from politicians at the highest levels to appraisers working in mom and pop businesses and used government programs that have responsibly put MILLIONS of people into their homes (almost everyone here has a GSE backed loan whether they like it or not unless they paying insane interest rates) all for cash.

Remember the Golden Rule, those who have the gold make the rules. The US Federal government is in hock 15 trillion dollars yet the corporations in this country are sitting on close to 3 trillion dollars in cash. Do you think that happened because of welfare mamas? And for some inexplicable reason those who don't want to repeat this catastrophe are called communists

The truth is all for there to see if they are simply willing to look.
 
The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has faced criticism for perceived overreach in targeting websites, like TVShack, with no direct US link.

In July the agency's assistant deputy director told the Guardian that ICE would now actively pursue websites similar to TVShack even if their only connection to the US was a website address ending in .com or .net.
Click to expand...
This is total bullshit. How can ICE get away with this shit?
 
The Neo Zero said:
This is total bullshit. How can ICE get away with this shit?
Click to expand...

ICE can get away with this simply because no one has stopped them. The only thing worse than watching my country do stupid shit like this, is watching the rest of the world just sit there and take it.
 
wizdum said:
ICE can get away with this simply because no one has stopped them. The only thing worse than watching my country do stupid shit like this, is watching the rest of the world just sit there and take it.
Click to expand...

At its peak, TVShack was among the 1,800 most visited websites in the world, the court heard, bringing O'Dwyer advertising revenue of £15,000 per month. When US customs agents seized the site in 2010 it was replaced immediately with a slightly different domain name – and the addition on the front page of a rap video called Fuck Tha Police. O'Dwyer, who was bailed, said outside court: "I am obviously disappointed with the judge's decision today. I think I have got faith in the high court for making the right decision."
Click to expand...

That's almost $23k a month. An innocent kid he is not if that's true. People on this forum will rip the hell out of a person receiving welfare but if this so called kid is just flat out making a ton of cash promoting stolen material that's ok?

There's nothing saddening about this at all IF he was making that kind of money from that site. What's saddening to me is the hypocrisy. Welfare mama taking money out of my check, screw her. But if someone is making REAL bank from stolen material. well it's just wrong to stop that.

Hell, I should run for office promoting the idea of ending welfare and just setting up profiteering pirate sites. Seems like that cool.
 
Without getting into the morality of it, piracy is wrong, the UK still really needs to grow some balls.
 
heatlesssun said:
That's almost $23k a month. An innocent kid he is not if that's true. People on this forum will rip the hell out of a person receiving welfare but if this so called kid is just flat out making a ton of cash promoting stolen material that's ok?
Click to expand...
He made the money indirectly, not directly. Google makes far more than that off of "pirated" works, and unauthorized songs on youtube. I'm sure Amazon hosts some pirated music and video files for its users.

Everyone can (and does) make money indirectly from piracy.

It's not like he's sending truckloads of DVDs to people or selling $1 downloads of blu-ray rips. That would be directly making money.
 
fattypants said:
He made the money indirectly, not directly. Google makes far more than that off of "pirated" works, and unauthorized songs on youtube. I'm sure Amazon hosts some pirated music and video files for its users.

Everyone can (and does) make money indirectly from piracy.

It's not like he's sending truckloads of DVDs to people or selling $1 downloads of blu-ray rips. That would be directly making money.
Click to expand...

Then Google needs to go down too. The issue still stands, it looks like O'Dwyer was profiting from material he shouldn't have profited from, no matter how much money was involved. It is hypocrisy at its finest to criticize the welfare recipient but praise the digital thief.

How can anyone condone profiteering from the theft of other peoples property? It is the ULTIMATE property right not to have your shit stolen and have people profit from that theft in my opinion.
 
heatlesssun said:
It is hypocrisy at its finest to criticize the welfare recipient but praise the digital thief.
Click to expand...
I have done neither.

heatlesssun said:
How can anyone condone profiteering from the theft of other peoples property? It is the ULTIMATE property right not to have your shit stolen and have people profit from that theft in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Nothing was stolen as far as I'm aware. He has not been charged with theft, robbery, or larceny. Unless you know something we don't?
 
And if you think Google needs to be taken down because someone played an unlicensed song on it, you're insane. You have probably used Google's services before, so are you not abetting their lawbreaking profit? Should you also be culpable for what Google does, since you supported them?

You know, it used to be that you had to prove that the existence of your corporation would be a benefit to the public if you wanted a judge to sign off on it. Google does far, far more for society as a whole than corporate media...if a court had to choose between Google's right to exist and some music publisher's right to exist, Google should win.
 
Didn't that script kiddie guy from the UK who broke into the CIA servers not get sent to the US...but the guy who did something against a corporation did? :confused:
 
fattypants said:
And if you think Google needs to be taken down because someone played an unlicensed song on it, you're insane. You have probably used Google's services before, so are you not abetting their lawbreaking profit? Should you also be culpable for what Google does, since you supported them?

You know, it used to be that you had to prove that the existence of your corporation would be a benefit to the public if you wanted a judge to sign off on it. Google does far, far more for society as a whole than corporate media...if a court had to choose between Google's right to exist and some music publisher's right to exist, Google should win.
Click to expand...

Not at all had anything to do with what I said. I said that if he was PROFITING from stolen material how is that different from the welfare recipient than many here think is profiting from money than many think is stolen from their incomes. To me the principle is the same, making money from that which you did not work for.

When it comes to making money from that which you did not work for and you know what you're doing, unless you are in real distress doing I am as conservative as they come. I work for a big bank bank. I never took anyone house, made them sign a bad mortgage agreement and yet in some what I feel as though I would be more frowned upon than O'Dwyer buy going to work everyday. There's something just not right about it.
 
heatlesssun said:
That's almost $23k a month. An innocent kid he is not if that's true. People on this forum will rip the hell out of a person receiving welfare but if this so called kid is just flat out making a ton of cash promoting stolen material that's ok?

There's nothing saddening about this at all IF he was making that kind of money from that site. What's saddening to me is the hypocrisy. Welfare mama taking money out of my check, screw her. But if someone is making REAL bank from stolen material. well it's just wrong to stop that.

Hell, I should run for office promoting the idea of ending welfare and just setting up profiteering pirate sites. Seems like that cool.
Click to expand...

Firstly, he did not "profit from piracy". He was paid by an advertising company for showing ads to people. The content of the site does not matter, unless the advertising agency objects to it, or it is illegal in the area that individual or advertising agency resides in. You may not like this, but your opinion has no merit on the law.

Secondly, the issue is not the morality of piracy. The fact is, he did not commit a crime. What he did is not illegal where he lives (the article cited an other case that was thrown out because of this). Since he can't be prosecuted for not committing a crime, he is being shipped to a random country where he can be prosecuted.

This sets a horrible precedent. Don't like what a journalist is saying on their site? Send them to China to be tried in a place with no freedom of the press. I dont want to live in a world where you can be charged and jailed for doing things that are not illegal.

I have no idea why you want to bring welfare into this discussion, thats only going to lead us way off topic and get this thread locked. Nice try though.
 
heatlesssun said:
Not at all had anything to do with what I said. I said that if he was PROFITING from stolen material how is that different from the welfare recipient than many here think is profiting from money than many think is stolen from their incomes. To me the principle is the same, making money from that which you did not work for.
Click to expand...

The ads are stolen material? :eek:

heatlesssun said:
When it comes to making money from that which you did not work for and you know what you're doing, unless you are in real distress doing I am as conservative as they come. I work for a big bank bank. I never took anyone house, made them sign a bad mortgage agreement and yet in some what I feel as though I would be more frowned upon than O'Dwyer buy going to work everyday. There's something just not right about it.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking all websites which feature ads that aren't theirs are "making money from that which they did not work for" too.
 
wizdum said:
Firstly, he did not "profit from piracy". He was paid by an advertising company for showing ads to people. The content of the site does not matter, unless the advertising agency objects to it, or it is illegal in the area that individual or advertising agency resides in. You may not like this, but your opinion has no merit on the law.
Click to expand...

No, that's not at all what the linked story is saying:

A judge ruled on Friday that a 23-year-old student can be extradited to the United States for running a website posting links to pirated TV shows and films, despite significant doubts over whether such sites break any UK laws.
Click to expand...
 
entropy13 said:
Technically speaking all websites which feature ads that aren't theirs are "making money from that which they did not work for" too.
Click to expand...

No, that's NOT what the linked article was saying:

A judge ruled on Friday that a 23-year-old student can be extradited to the United States for running a website posting links to pirated TV shows and films, despite significant doubts over whether such sites break any UK laws.
Click to expand...


If someone has a different story of what happened then please link it because you guys are just making shit up now. This is saying that he posted links to stuff, stuff that he probably knew was illegal if was smart enough to run website and he made cash from it.

I have a feeling that Kyle knows what to to post on [H] that isn't pirated material.
 
heatlesssun said:
No, that's not at all what the linked story is saying:
Click to expand...

He wasn't really disputing that grounds for extradition though, more on your continuous harping that the monthly earnings he got was through the pirated links.


Still though, after much reading hackers in the UK targeting US government websites (as well as websites of other governments) are yet to be extradited, heck as I've already mentioned at least one of them, Gary McKinnon was even able to use Asperger's as justification not to go ahead with the extradition. His case was apparently also a primary cause for reviewing the extradition treaty between the two countries.

Yet this "piracy" extradition case was handled relatively quickly.
 
heatlesssun said:
If someone has a different story of what happened then please link it because you guys are just making shit up now. This is saying that he posted links to stuff, stuff that he probably knew was illegal if was smart enough to run website and he made cash from it.

I have a feeling that Kyle knows what to to post on [H] that isn't pirated material.
Click to expand...

"stuff that he probably knew was illegal"

Yet in that very same quote you posted:

"despite significant doubts over whether such sites break any UK laws."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top