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

gerty.

What is the argument to support the idea he would NOT get a fair trial in the US? It seems increasingly common for us in the UK to view the US with very deep suspicion which is possibly due to the position of some states on execution and the concept of Guantanamo. But really (and this is a genuine question) is it really fair to say that the US justice system is less fair than ours?

thebestisyettocome this link, paragraph 7 explains better than I can,(they're legal people)

rshipstuff,
re 1. TV SHACK may have been one of the worlds busiest sites. As to it's status re piracy or otherwise that has been alleged and denied.
re 2. Whether or not the US went to quite a lot of trouble to close it down is not their basis for an extradition request.
re 3.As above.
re 4 As above.
re.5 As above

the extradition request is on the basis of copyright infringement, going back to the bus analogy, driving a bus is not copying material.

this link, ipkitten.blogspot.com/2012/01/free-flight-to-us-its-dire-for-odwyer.html scroll down to comments/ forum , lots of arguments re the various technical legalities etc, with plenty of legal quotes and citations.

1. Well, the judge has considered it in a court of law and found that according to UK law it would be in breach of copyright.

2-5. No it's not, but O'Dwyer had his website closed down once, he had the chance to walk away, and he spurned it. They took all reasonable steps to shut down this damaging website, and O'Dwyer just kept on going. They had no choice but to go after him personally.

I read the IP Kat link, it's just a summary of the judge's thoughts, and not a particularly good one. The judge relies on s20(2) of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 to interpret s107(2A), but IP Kat doesn't mention this.

'References in this Part to communication to the public are to communication to the public by electronic transmission, and in relation to a work include?
(a)the broadcasting of the work;
(b)the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.'

Asking people, as IPKat does, what "your understanding of 'communicating the work in public' in the context of s 107(2A)?"

is not very helpful without also explaining s20.

In this context, the comments #2+3, which reference a Canadian case, saying that a hyperlink is not 'publication' doesn't help in judging a UK law requiring only the much lesser standard of 'making available' (e.g., cf. someone handing out leaflets on the street - they are making them available, but they did not necessarily publish them). Comment 7 is refuted in several other comments, while 'Tim Jackson', referencing Newzbin, doesn't seem to realise that O'Dwyer apparently compiled many of the links himself.....

if the 'making available' is being applied to the posting of links then Google etc are lawbreakers, the UK copyright laws obviously need clarity before anybody can make a sound judgement, and nobody should have an extradition request upon them based on unsound judgement.

er, no, that's been extensively covered, that's the 'mere conduit' defence. Google don't select the links, as O'Dwyer did, it's all done by computer.

But if you type 'Free Film' in the Google search engine, Google selects matching criteria, and therefore selects the links which it then offers pages and pages of thus 'making available'.

"Google selects matching criteria"

Sort of. Google's automated web crawlers, aka 'spiders', do. No-one manually found and posted the links, which is the case here,

Never-the-less Google makes it available.

Making available is an offence, unless you are acting as mere conduit
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/regulation/17/made

'Where an information society service is provided which consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service or the provision of access to a communication network, the service provider (if he otherwise would) shall not be liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction as a result of that transmission where the service provider?

(a)did not initiate the transmission;

(b)did not select the receiver of the transmission; and

(c)did not select or modify the information contained in the transmission. '

Google store the entire internet.

Without selection or modification.

O'Dwyer, otoh, devoted his website to movies + TV, which he very much did select.

Another way of looking at it is, while it might be possible to argue that Google do 'select or modify' the information in their 'transmission', and hence do not qualify for 'mere conduit', that really doesn't help O'Dwyer, who certainly DID, 'select or modify' the information.

so, Joe Bloggs uploads chittychittybangbang and initiates transmission, (a)

Unsolicited, Sally Smith downloads chittychittybangbang (b)

TVshack neither selects or modifies the transmission of chittychittybangbang (c)

but was a mere conduit

Er, no tvshack advised people they could only upload 'full episodes and movies'. That is 'selection'. They also vetted users, rejecting those who didn't add infringing content (i.e. full episodes and movies). Finally, much of the content was uploaded by 'management', presumably O'Dwyer himself.

cf. youtube, which tells you NOT to upload infringing content, and accepts ANY kind of video.

The guy has made over £100,000 from his website. He is guilty as hell. I hate all these attempts to pass him off as an innocent "helping his friends to watch films". He's in his 20s, and this website was a concerted attempt to make money. He should be on trial in this country, but our justice system is pathetic, so I can hardly blame the Americans for trying to extradite him.

I don't think anyone believes he's innocent. I live in the same town as the guy and nobody has much sympathy for him.

@JosephoneCD the money he made was from selling advertising space on his website, not from the sale of films etc, he neither hosted the films nor charged people to use his site.

In excess of 193000 people have now signed the #saverichard petition www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard set up only a few days ago by Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.
The 2003 UK/US extradition treaty was hastily tweaked after 9/11 for counter-terrorism purposes.
Richard O is not a terrorist, nor is he accused of anything connected to terrorism.

There is very little traffic on the MN WebChat thread in advance of the Live Web Chat tomorrow with Julia O'Dwyer at 1pm

It would be good to get some more contributions, if people have questions.

Betelguese, as a fellow supporter of this petition it's good to see your voice.

This for me is a shocker about extradition and jurisdiction.

The USA should have got over its 'Word Policeman' role after Vietnam, let alone its other later fuck-ups. And will the UK never learn? We worry about our autonomy in relation to Europe, yet this nonsense with the USA continues ...

Magna Carta, anyone?

@JosephoneCD the money he made was from selling advertising space on his website, not from the sale of films etc, he neither hosted the films nor charged people to use his site.
That's a stupid argument. He was making money from directing people to illegally hosted films and TV shows. Do you think this is a reasonable way to earn a living?