Picture
TV Shack seized
In January 2012 we reported on the US attempt to extradite UK citizen Richard O'Dwyer to the USA. Richard was one of many British citizens wanted by the US authorities yet in most people's eyes he and others were not criminals. Any justice that they needed to face should have been possible in the UK. The extradition of UK citizens such as Richard and pensioner Christopher Tappin end up looking purely vindictive.

Richards's alleged "crime" was creating and operating a website. TV Shack offered links to sites where users could download movies and the like. He did not force visitors to the site, to follow the link nor recommend that they do so. He offered a go between service.

At the time of his arrest his actions were not illegal in the UK. That loophole has since been closed. However that is another reason his extradition to face US justice is nonsense. In our earlier report we wrote, "" under the so-called dual criminality rule, since he has not been charged for an offence in the UK, the US has no right to extradite him". The UK should respect this rule instead of simply handing Richard to the US,over like a lamb to the slaughter."  Six months later that still stands.

Yesterday it was made public that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had begun an online petition in the hope that Richard's extradition will be stopped. It is coped here with the necessary link which we hope you will follow and sign:

Stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer to the USA

Hi,

I am writing to you to stop the extradition of British citizen, Richard O'Dwyer to the USA.

I’m concerned about this case because O'Dwyer is not a US citizen, his site (TVShack.net) was not hosted there, and most of his users were not from the US. I don’t understand why America is trying to prosecute a UK citizen for an alleged crime which took place on UK soil. If there was a crime it should be investigated and tried here in the UK, not in the US.

When operating his site, Richard O'Dwyer was careful to always try and play by the rules: on the few occasions he received takedown notices, he complied. His site hosted links, like a search-engine does, not copyrighted content, and these were submitted by users. Both of these are protected in the USA.

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

I’m aware that both parties in the coalition government criticised the unfair extradition treaty when in opposition, and more recently David Cameron and Theresa May have spoken of the need to review it.

But for Richard there’s no time for a lengthy review. The USA is pushing hard to extradite him now. So please, for Richard and his family stop this extradition.

Sincerely,

[Your name]


You can sign the petition here.

In the time it took to put this report together the petition increased from 40,000 signatures to 50,000. Good luck to Richard.

Tags: Extradition treaty with US, Richard O'Dwyer extradition, extradition from UK to US, Jimmy Wales petition, Wikipedia founder,TV shack creator, Stop Richard O'Dwyer extradition


 
 
Picture
The UK Home Secretary Theresa May has in recent weeks signed away the rights of more than one UK citizen. When the US requests extradition of a UK citizen May it seems willingly obliges. It may seem a two way street but it is far from that. UK citizens are not afforded the same legal safeguards as US citizens.

TEK reported on the case of Christopher Tappin a retired UK businessman who was extradited to the US after a long battle to stay in the UK. His case is ongoing. Yesterday May signed an extradition order regarding 23-year-old Richard O'Dwyer. He will now face charges in the US related to file sharing and his TV Shack website.

As Reuters reported, "Campaigners argue O'Dwyer's is the latest in a series of cases that demonstrate Britain's extradition rules with the United States are lopsided, allowing suspects to be extradited without criminal charges from British authorities". Once again the UK is letting its citizens down and surrendering to US bullying.

Perhaps however there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. According to the BBC David Cameron has raised the matter of this extradition treaty with President Obama during the current US visit. They have reported that David Cameron "wants to review how extradition arrangements are working between the UK and US in the light of recent controversial cases"

About time is all this blogger can say.. Remember though debating an issue is no guarantee that a change will occur. If you feel strongly on the issue of the 2003 extradition treaty please sign the petition.
Petition here


 
 
Picture
The Internet is changing. Some change is inevitable. All resources change as they develop but are the changes that the Internet is currenlty facing appropriate and necessary?

Today TEK has carried a story about a debate in Canada regarding Internet privacy. It seems that Canadians could soon be "snooped" on by authorities as they work online and chat on the phone. If the changes in Canada are passed into law the reason given will be to help stop child pornography. You have to wonder though if this step, which many see as a step too far, will achieve what it claims is its purpose. "Spying" on citizens without the need for a warrant has many obvious downsides. It smacks of "Big Brother"

In the UK there have been attempts to close some websites accused of making copyrighted music freely available. Richard O'Dwyer is still facing extradition to the US after website TV Shack was closed down by US Federal authorities. In January 2012 website Megaupload in Australia was closed down and its bosses arrested.

Today, February 15, 2012, in the UK  RnBXclusive.com has been shut down.

The site has been closed by SOCA, the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The website now carries the image above warning that users may have also committed a crime by using the website possibly facing criminal charges.It warns that visitors who have used the site to download music they could face up to 10 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

The UK authorities told the BBC that, "Soca targets organised criminal enterprises profiting from the exploitation of the UK public and legitimate businesses. Continue reading the main storyMembers of the public can become facilitators of organised crime by obtaining property or services from its perpetrators” In a statement SOCA said, "Much of the music offered for download by the RnBXclusive.com website was illegally obtained from artists, leading the industry to attribute losses of approximately £15m per year to the site's activity."

Such websites cost industries such as the music industry dearly and have been accused of in effect damaging the careers of artists. The leader of Pirate Party UK however said,  "The explicit threat to visitors of the site and take down notice is alarming."The claim that the information gathered can be used to identify visitors and their location, followed by a statement that Soca has the capability to monitor, investigate and inform visitors internet service providers of apparent 'infringements', making visitors liable for prosecution seems extreme and unduly threatening."

It does seem excessive in that surely some of the site's users must have been unaware of the true nature of the site.

OPINION: You can agree with some of this. It would be hard not to. However the extreme actions currently being undertaken seem to be derived from more than simple copyright breaches. Perhaps many governments are running scared of the Internet after they have praised its use by rebels in countries such as Libya and Syria.Action definitely needs taking to halt child pornography, adult pornography when the adult has not consented and video piracy. Are the changes currently being pursued appropriate? You decide.

 
 
Picture
UK student Richard O'Dwyer has been fighting extradition to the US. His crime? Richard set up a website in the UK called TV Shack. Visitors to Richard's website found links that led them to sites where they could download films. US authorities claim that the copies of movies downloaded via TV Shack were pirate ones and thus illegal.

However, Richard did not force any visitor to follow the links. Did he do all of this in all innocence? Maybe not. Either way it seems that the US want to mete out rough justice, if at all possible. No doubt this is to send a harsh signal to other would be site developers. It is worth pointing out that at the time Richard's actions were not illegal in the UK.


In court today, January 13, 2012, 23-year-old Richard was told that he will be extradited to the US. Many people in the UK will feel that he has been let down by the British justice system. Richard's legal team will be able to lodge an appeal though against extradition.Whilst we all know that film piracy damages the film business, Richard's extradition to the US is excessive.

Although Richard's website did not directly make any money from the downloading of films, allegedly it did by way of advertising. Richard it seems though wll be a guinea pig in every sense of the word. He will be a test case for extradition and for court proceedings against such a so called crime.

If you visit Richard's website you will now see a US government promotional video explaining the damage that video piracy does to the film industry. You will also see a federal banner telling you that the website has been closed down.

Richard's argument against extradition is that, " under the so-called dual criminality rule, since he has not been charged for an offence in the UK, the US has no right to extradite him". The UK should respect this rule instead of simply handing Richard to the US,over like a lamb to the slaughter.

The fact that the US is taking this stance is wrong. It means that Britons could face charges for breaking US copyright laws even if they have no link to America and servers are based elsewhere. Nonsensical.