Cease extradition of Mother's young son to USA. 'The Fight of Her Life' Julia O'Dwyer, Richard O'Dwyer.r

[Vesta2]

Fellow Mum's please could you support this mother in her campaign to cease extradition of her young son to the USA. Please visit her blog juliasblog-the-fight-of-our-lives.blogspot.com/og. Thankyou

doesn't 'allow' sugest it's more that somebody has requested that the US hear a case as their own country is being unsupportive/
Isn't Richard O'Dwyer's case more like Sarah Ferguson's where so far the Home Office has said they wont extradite, and I personally agree, as the offense is not an offense in the UK?
uk.news.yahoo.com/no-ferguson-extradition-over-turkey-film-source-114452577.html

This boy is from just up the road from me. Apparently he has made a tidy six figure sum from the website, so his mother trying to portray him as some little boy lost is pretty ridiculous. Plenty of kids download films but most of them don't make hundreds of thousands of pounds from piracy.

doubt they'll be downloading now.

There is a vast difference between downloading a couple of songs/copying a mate's cd for personal use and distributing someone else's (or links to) material in order to make money.

I imagine we have probably all copied a cd in our time, perhaps even visited a file sharing website. But I don't imagine many of us would feel as comfortable going to the local market and buying a load of pirated CD's from a stall, and that is the difference.

He made his living from pirated material. If you are going to operate an international business then you find out what the laws are in the countries where you are going to operate - it is that simple.

As for Sarah Ferguson, again there is a vast difference between doing something for personal gain (i.e. in Richard o'Dwyer's case) and doing something which is ultimately to the benefit of one innocent group and to create awareness in another. I imagine Turkey's requests for extradition have more to do with not wanting Turkey to be seen in a bad light for the treatment of their orphans than the violation of childrens' privacy...

squidgy was his company registered in the US or the sites that he linked too?

I also think it's a bit ridiculous to bang on and on saying that most people buy pirated copies of films. We don't. I can't think of anyone I know that does, actually.

And as far as pirated films and music not being a crime... well, when I worked for the local constabulary over the years, I vaguely recall that it was a crime. I'm reasonably certain it still is.

I think that throwing this out where people can discuss it, then jumping all over those who don't agree with you, is a bit childish. And the whole Turkey incident is a completely different scenario, as has been pointed out numerous times by a number of different posters.

As far as him being in jail somewhere else, well, too bad. You can't simply say "oh well they can't try you and jail you in THEIR country, it's too far away, pet" sob sob... That would set a precedent for people to routinely break the law when out of the country, then return back to England and not have to pay for their crime. Would you be just as happy for someone to come over here and commit a crime, then leave the country and get away with it?

Bottom line... he's an adult... he violated their laws (very likely knowingly) and profited from it (over £130K worth!). He had this set up as a "legitimate business" on a website in order to make a profit through advertising, so he is responsible for making sure he is within the laws of whatever country he is working through, which in this case also happened to be the US. I'd be interested to know whether or not he claimed this business profit and was all above board about it. I suppose I don't blame the mum for trying to protect him, but if she seems a bit naive. He's old enough and obviously educated/skilled enough in computer knowledge to know better.

He'll do a few years in an open prison with other "white collar" crooks. He isn't going to be going to sing sing and be jailed with murderers and rapists.

I don't think the respective morals of each case count in the law. If you have copied a CD for someone that's copyright infringement and as such it's illegal. Wouldn't you then expect a fair trial in the UK?

whoah there triggles - i am not advocating piracy - i am a police officer - it is a crime.

what i do not like is that it is one rule for one, and another for when we feel like it., or when the moral majority decide which laws it is ok to break, and which are not.

piracy is a crime - all piracy - including burning copy CDs and file sharing.
what i am asking is why should this be seen differently in this young mans case?

i do not agree with it because the botton line is that he broke the law of another country - in some countries, as someone pointed out upthread, drinking alcohol is illegal, would you be expected to be extradited to face trial for that when you did not commit a crime in your home country?

I personally think extraditing him for this is extreme.

Extreme? He made £130K+ on this. I hardly think this was penny ante. That's a fair bit of cash! Again, I'm curious if he reported this as taxable income. It was a business, and as such, he is the CEO.. responsible for any laws he may have broken. I think this is something that some are overlooking. This is not a child that downloaded something small on the web. This is an adult that made a huge profit on the back of something that is illegal, and who most likely knew it.

Perhaps if you feel that some are getting off easier, then you should be pushing for them to be treated more seriously, rather than hoping this person gets off. And yes, if he did something illegal in another country, then he should be expected to take responsibility for it. This was not a "drinking alcohol is illegal" thing. This was a copyright law, which should have been relatively easy for him to research, and should have been part of his basic business plan when putting together his website and business organisation.

It seems that he is playing on the fact that he is young to try and squeeze out of it, by acting like he innocently did this. But the fact remains, he was an adult, he made a for-profit business, and he should have been responsible enough to do his research before his site even went live. IMO I think he was probably banking on the idea that if he was one step removed from the links and in the UK, he would be able to safely sidestep both the US & UK law, and he miscalculated. Obviously speculation, but that's my opinion.

But, it is not a crime here. At what point do you allow the rules and regulations of one country to impose itself on another country?
What about alcohol?
What about homosexuality?
Girls being educated?
Having more than one child?
All of these are illegal in various countries around the world, if they requested extradition of UK citizens for doing any of these things whilst in the UK would you support that?

ok, where did i say i hope he 'gets off'?

and you are absolutely correct re copyright law - so where is that line? where do we stop turning a blind eye to piracy? because technically burning a cd is infringement of that same law.
Where do we draw the line with regard to extraditing UK citizens that have committed no crime in the uk, but have elsewhere?

im not being combative - im simply asking. where do you draw the line? is it the fact that he had the audacity to make money from it? the amount of money? is that the issue?
it shouldnt be.
the issue should be that he did not commit a crime in here, if you google "how do i get a pirate copy of warhorse it immediately directs me to sites where i can view this, infringing copyright law. (i have just tried it)
here, law breaking in action in a click of a mouse

Would you prosecute Google in the same way as this student - because what he did was the exact same thing.

This is so so wrong on so many levels and yes i do think extradition is extreme and wrong and its time to stop that when the US says jump, we say how high. This young man commited no crime here.

Key difference is that there is an American victim of his crime - i.e Sony, Warner Brothers etc. Me getting pissed in my front room doesn't impact a Saudi national or corporation hence there is no parity of argument.

Also it is not clear whether this is legal or not in this country - there is not a statutory offence that is true but a civil case could proceed with some clever arguments and extension of current precedent.

He knew what the American position was and deliberately set-up to avoid, as he saw it, that law. It hasn't worked. He took a risk that hasnt worked out and now needs to face the consequences.

so see my link above with regard to Google. They too should be prosecuted in the same way for directing people to sites with pirate material freely available.

But of course a civil case wouldn't warrant extradition. Same argument applies to a criminal extension or interpretation of the law however.

I am thinking this would make a fab. piece of research.

Google don't directly profit. Did he only profit from advertising? Not sure.

Also google are not responsible for the links as such. Did he return results from a database that he maintained for example? I don't know but am thinking of material differences in business model which could explain differences in legal position/interpretation.

Is he 23? If so, describing him as 'young' is pathetic. Piracy is a crime. People are being made redundant in the film, music and tv industries as we speak. He should face up to his wrongdoing.

vesta you are missing the point.

The thing about internet crime is that it doesn't have the same kind of boundaries as face-to-face crime (if you can call it that).

If you are doing things in this country that are illegal in other countries such as having more than one child/drinking alcohol then you are not accountable in other countries because what you are doing is not bordering into those other countries.

However, the internet doesn't have such boundaries because, if you set up a website that can be accessed by countries where the laws are different to our own, then that website also needs to abide by the laws of that country. Because you are essentially doing business in that country, albeit you are physically in the UK.

Let me give you another example:

The age of consent is different in all countries. In some countries it is eighteen, in others it is as low as fourteen, and in the UK it is sixteen.

Now let's say a man from a country where the age of consent is fourteen logs on to a chat room and starts chatting to a young girl in the UK who herself is only fourteen. He talks to her, flirts with her, and eventually the conversation turns sexual. In this country, because she is under the age of consent, that would be considered grooming and the man would face arrest, prosecution and a stint on the sex offenders register. But in the country he is from the age of consent is only fourteen. So, because he isn't actually breaking the law in his own country, do you think it is appropriate that he be having sexually explicit conversations with a girl who in the UK is under the age of consent? Should we excuse his behavior on the basis he wasn't actually doing anything wrong where he is from? or should he have to think twice before chatting up a fourteen year old girl on the internet, knowing that actually he might be breaking the law in someone else's country if she is not where he is from?

I can tell you now that if you had a sexually explicit conversation with someone who is considered a minor in their own country, you would potentially have to answer to the laws of that country, regardless of what your own country's law on the matter is.

The internet has blurred those boundaries, and people need to be aware of that when they start thinking they can do what the hell they like without consequence - it just doesn't work like that.

and you tube....one of the links was to you tube. they should get prosecuted too.

i wonder why Google and You tube wont be prosecuted.....?
could it be because they are multi million pound companies and the U.S is obviously only interested in going after the student from sheffield...

gomez
yes - he profited from advertising. his site had a list of sites - so in effect his page was like a google page.

....and that was his legal argument - that his site did nothing more than direct people to other sites where pirated material could be accessed.

what about all the people who use these sites?
why are they not prosecuted?

and fgs stop referring to him as a young man. He is an adult.

And the only point at which the law takes account of someone's age is when they are under eighteen.

but he is a young man. ive not said young child or young son - ive said young man. my son is 20 and i regard him as a young man.

and age limits in law are not set at 18 for everything - it depends on which act Some acts regard adults as being 18, others do not.

vicar there have been instances where people have been prosecuted for file sharing - the individuals that is.

The law is a bit blurred on this I think, but iirc the illegal part of piracy is the distribution. So - if I log on to kazzaa or limewire or any of the other file sharing websites I can download as many songs/films/pieces of tv programming as I like and I am not breaking the law. However, if I then open up my own computer so that other users of said sites can download from me then I am guilty of distribution and am breaking the law.

iirc there were people in the UK recently who were prosecuted for this - I can't remember the exact details but basically they had x thousands of songs from their personal collections and were allowing other users to download them from them, iyswim.

wannabe, do you not think that the fact that the boundaries of cyber-space are yet to be clearly defined is surely another reason why the O'Dwyer case should be tried in the UK, otherwise it sets a precedent for the USA to have extensive boundaries and control on a global level.