British student may be extradited to US on copyright charges | Hacker News Reader

British student may be extradited to US on copyright charges

boingboing.net

223 pointsubasu79 comments

How exactly do we hold people in other countries accountable for US law? Isn't this US imperialist bullshit getting a little out of hand? And for what, to uphold the Entertainment Guild.

Next thing you know we're gonna be extradited to Britain for insulting the queen.

This case is a bit unusual; if you read the judge's findings (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...) extradition depends on the fact that the judge is satisfied that his conduct is also an offense under UK law. It's quite similar to what happened to the NatWest Three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three).

The distinction with the NatWest Three though is that the Enron situation meant that there were grounds for the US to have a stake in the prosecution. I can't see in this case how the US have a stake.

I realise that having such a stake is not required by the Treaty, but perhaps it should be?

I'd agree that the US's claim to a stake in the NatWest Three case is probably more legitimate. Of course, TVShack had a lot of commercial activity with US advertisers, but doesn't seem like it would be difficult to establish this in a UK court.

The forum clause, which was passed by both Houses, would require such a stake, but it hasn't been implemented by either the last government or the current one, apparently because it breaks the treaty we signed with the US which led to the act in the first place. A shame, because it looks eminently sensible to me: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/83A

So... urge the Brits to prosecute. A violation of US law, committed outside of the USA, by a non-American, is none of the USA's business.

Since it's illegal in Britain also, would it not make more sense (and be way less sketchy) to prosecute the guy in Britain?

The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case and decided it wouldn't be in the public interest to proceed with a case. They decided there wasn't enough evidence, indeed the Crown Prosecution Service has been denied access to the evidence that was supposedly used to extradite him.

> The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case and decided it wouldn't be in the public interest to proceed with a case.

If it's not in the public interest to do it in the UK, why is it in the public interest to do it in the USA? It seems to me that the judge is contradicting the crown here, which seems a bit off, even if you assume it's his right to do so.

The CPS != "the crown" (at least not today). The CPS is the UK equivalent of the DA's office. It's a political bureaucracy (I could literally complain for days about how much of a bureaucracy it is, but you'd get bored of me :)).

The judge, theoretically, is more of the expert on the law and whether it should be tried - but the CPS have to decide to bring the prosecution to him/her. Which is why you regularly get cases that should be seen in court, but which a suit decides is statistically unlikely to prosecute favourably.

Don't English and Welsh law allow for private prosecution of crimes in cases where the CPS declines to prosecute?

Wouldn't that provide an avenue of relief to the copy right holders without removing a UK citizen from the jurisdiction of UK laws?

This whole thing seems troubling to me.

How many US Internet companies collect VAT from sales to folks in the UK? Would that make founders of a US startup subject to extradition to the UK for tax avoidance? What if it's just a tiny DBA "company" with no liability shield?

The whole thing smells rotten to me!

I think it's somewhat unfortunate. IANAL, but I think he can be extradited because the judge thinks an offense has occurred even though the CPS has decided not to prosecute (it's what he seems to be saying here: 'Parliament has made conduct found to be contrary to S.107 (2A) criminal. No court can change the statutory offence').

Unfortunately, there's no clause in the Extradition Act in power at the moment which allows a public interest defense, so it's not the job of the judge to decide such an issue. The forum clause (linked to a bit further down) would change this.

You could make the case there are victims in the US though, no?

I don't support the concept of extradition (period, I think?), but there is a case to be made that the U.S. is aiming to protect its citizens (the media companies in this case) against wrongs.

so if a murderer or rapist managed to leave the US would you still say so?

Not the same though - if a murderer fled the US, the crime was still committed on US soil, by someone in the US at the time, against (presumably) a US resident/citizen. In other words, it's rightfully American business.

The other country would simply be returning the person to the correct jurisdiction.

Note that even this is not clear-cut at all - many countries will refuse extradition even in this case if there is evidence that the person will face the death sentence or torture.

The USA simply doesn't have the right to prosecute crimes abroad, with no relation to the USA whatsoever - whether in defense of its citizenry or its corporations. That's what the whole concept of sovereignty is about!

So before you say/publish anything in the internet you should read the laws of every country in the world? That is just plain nonsense.

I suppose I'm talking morality more than legality.

I hope for your sake you never say anything derogatory about the Thai monarchy.

I'll concede my claim requires a belief in an absolute morality, which I don't necessarily, but take it my claim in the following form:

1. You believe that copyright infringement is a "wrong" committed by one party on another party (the victim).

2. A British national commits copyright infringement where the victim is in the United States.

3. The United States conceivably has a moral right to seek punishment against that British national.

I mean, to say otherwise would be to say that copyright existed within a border. We have treaties explicitly so that isn't so - if there were a place in the world where copyright law didn't apply, you couldn't post things on the Internet and expect it to retain its copyright.

I don't support extradition in this case. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe in an absolute morality, and I'm not even sure I believe that intellectual property is a good idea on balance, but the moral argument can be made if you're willing to speak in more concrete terms (i.e., if you're willing to accept the premise that copyright infringement is a global "wrong")

Incidentally, this is what I found in the terms of service for a certain popular website. I alerted them to it, and they are looking into rewording it to be less absurd.

I would really urge everyone to read the above linked (by njs12345) PDF of the ruling. It's written very clearly in the main, and, for me, really threw a lot of light on what this case meant (and, I admit, changed my opinion somewhat - the media reports seem to be really diminishing how commercial the operation was).

However you expect you'll react though, it's well worth a read to get the whole story.

The case mentioned "R v Rock & Overton at the Crown Court in Gloucester (T20097013)" (http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/legal/reginavsrockoverton.pd...) is interesting. It discusses the site TV Links which did exactly the same as TV Shack, the only difference however appears to be that TV Links attempted to remove any links reported as copyright infringing (a la DMCA protection). A few interesting snippets:

"In summary Mr Bridge contented that the prosecution of the defendants amounted to a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Mr Overton's right to freedom of speech. He said that The Guardian newspaper had carried an article dated 24th February 2007 describing TV-Links in detail. TV-Links did no more than any other TV listings site or indeed The Guardian newspaper. TV-Links merely expressed the fact that films could be accessed on other host sites."

"It was argued that TV-Links was in a similar position to Google or YouTube in that all of the material could be accessed by persons who used TV-Links could also be accessed through their use of those sites as well. ... The essential difference between TV-Links and sites that directly provide pirated material in breach of copyright (it was not suggested that Google or YouTube fall into this category) is that those other sites store the illegal material and make it available to users of the site. TV-Links did not store any such material. It was simply a sign post pointing the way to where such material could be accessed by those members of the public who chose to do so."

"The prosecutor in this case, he said, had a cast iron case against the viewers of the material accessed by the use of the TV-Links site and against the broadcasters of that material. He did not however have a case against the middle man, namely the defendants and who had not made available this material. The defendants themselves were not making available the copyright material."

Next thing you know we're gonna be extradited to Britain for insulting the queen.

I don't believe that's an offence in the UK. (Thailand has a law like that). Remember Parliament in the UK can despose and appoint a new monarch, so I doubt they'd make it a crime to insult the monarch.

Fairly sure this is not true. The monarch has the power to dissolve parliament, but not vice versa.

Parliament does have the power to sack the monarch; the last time this happened was in 1689.

Edward VIII was forced to abdicate in 1936:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis

That's true.

And the Act of Settlement of 1700ish defines that only the protestant descendeds of Sophie of Hanover can be monarch. This is an example of Parliament defining who is (and more importantly for the Stuarts) who cannot be monarch.

The UK has a legal/constitutional system that appears, on the surface, to say one thing, but in reality says something else. On paper, de jure, the monarch has all the power, the parliament operates in their name, they appoint and dissolve the parliament, they sign all the laws, etc.

However in reality, parliament has all the power. The queen has no veto on laws, if they were to refuse to sign a law, they would have to resign (or there'd be a civil war). In theory the queen appoints the government and prime minister, but they must appoint the person who parliament has choose. In theory PM goes to the queen to dissolve parliament, but the queen cannot refuse. The monarch has mo power anymore is more of a formality.

Remember the Queen is part of a massive and powerful family that has helped run most of Europe for several hundred years, just because she is deemed a public image doesn't mean the family power would ever be replaced without considerable force.

Insulting of the Queen, called Lese-majesty, was only abolished in Scotland in 2010, it was prior to that a common law criminal offense, thought that last time it was ever prosecuted was in 1715.

ps. Also of note, offending the queen was the last step in the expulsion of Genesis P.Oridge (1980's?), when he and his cohorts mailed her their ejaculate.

I had the same question about Marc Emery, Prince of Pot -- well known in Canada for selling marijuana seeds and a public advocate of legalizing marijuana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Emery

Long story short, the US gov't got him extradited and he's now serving a five year sentence in a US prison.

No doubt there are countless situations like this but I just remember being incredibly shocked (no doubt naively) that the RCMP would go and arrest the guy just because the US asked them to.

I had mentioned this before but I think it bears repeating. This case was the last straw for me. Aweful movies and bad theatergoing experience aside, I refuse to patronize an industry that targets people across international borders simply for having links on a website. And I used to watch some 8-10 movies monthly so I hope this case is worth it to the MPAA. Goodbye, hollywood. Your greed condemns you.

It's one thing to watch from a distance as the US legal system becomes more and more unnerving. It's completely different to think that even in your own home nation such as the UK that US law can cross international boarders and ensnare you. This is wrong.

Next: US Government to extradite Chinese dissidents for saying bad things about the Chinese Government on the internet.

All of this is just wrong.

Except saying bad things about the Chinese Government isn't illegal in the US. Yet. But still, you've misread the original post.

Not exactly true. In exchange for their support in the War on Terror, China managed to get a number of vaguely-defined domestic opposition groups (particularly ethnic separatist ones) listed as international terrorist organizations.

I'm not sure the point at which anti-China activities would fall under the purview of anti-terrorism laws, but I'm not sure the issue is as clean-cut as you think. A Chinese individual who sent money back home or canvassed for support might get nailed on quite a few grounds assuming the United States was willing to be consistent in applying its policies regarding Islamic terrorism to anti-China groups.

Oh wow. Okay.

But I still think

> A Chinese individual who sent money back home or canvassed for support might get nailed on quite a few grounds assuming the United States was willing to be consistent in applying its policies regarding Islamic terrorism to anti-China groups.

seems a bit unlikely. Has it happened yet?

Misread? All I'm saying is that the extradition is just wrong. You don't need to be patronising.

The student has never been to America in all his life, yet the laws in Britain has allowed America to grab anyone from anywhere in Britain, and try them.

Do you get a visa after you serve the term?

Surely not! That's the most retarded part of it all: people who can, and want, to contribute to the US economy are not welcome in. Now, someone who pissed off some small-time mafioso running some shitty movie studio? Oh yeah! Bring them in, try them here and spend a ridiculous amount of money and effort to punish them!

Tax payers should be breaking things over stuff like this.

He should consider himself lucky that an attack drone hasn't come into the equation yet.

Free ticket to the US + a possible free vacation = win! :-)

But seriously, if he gets extradited, he still needs to be tried by a US court, where a judge may decide that this is all too crazy and drop the charges.

Best of all, everything (including the prison, which is pretty expensive) is paid by US taxpayers - who's the sucker now?

I hope that the appeal _does_ go through. This is a dangerous precedent for our legal system to be setting. I do not like the idea that US law can be applied to me here in the UK despite having no business in the US itself.

So true:

"[T]his sets a terrible precedent. If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US because of the content of their web pages hosted in the UK, why wouldn't US citizens be able to be extradited to Thailand on charges of disrespecting the king or to China for undermining the government by being critical of it? To even press this case at all shows either a fundamental undervaluing of the freedom of speech of everyone, including US citizens, or, more likely, a belief in the most fundamental of American hypocrisies: the idea that the rules that the US applies to the rest of the world shouldn't be applied to the US."

For their next trick, the IRS will be sending tax bills the to British citizens...

I hear dumping a ship-load of tea into a local harbor is a good way to make your point about this sort of thing.

If you own american stock in the UK you have to register with the IRS (W-8BEN form) to make sure you don't get taxed twice on dividends.

Am I not mistaken that if you hold dual-citizenship or even a Green Card but are not living and declaring income in the US that the IRS still expects you to pay tax in the US?

"why wouldn't US citizens be able to be extradited to Thailand on charges of disrespecting the king or to China for undermining the government by being critical of it?"

This sounds like a clever point, but really isn't. Extradition requires that the crime is also a crime under the local laws. Which is why Swiss Bankers would never be extradited to the US for tax evasion, and why Americans would never be extradited to Thailand for making fun on the King.

I don't think copyright infringement should warrant extradition, but I don't have a good reason why I hold that belief.

This sounds like a clever point, but really isn't. Extradition requires that the crime is also a crime under the local laws.

The argument is being made (quite rightly I think) is that what he did was not illegal under British law.

So perhaps it is a good comparison :)

If he committed no crime under British laws, I guarantee he would not have been eligible for extradition. The article is so thin on substance that it is hard to formulate an intelligent opinion on the matter.

Edit:

I just skimmed the PDF, and the kid argued that he shouldn't be extradited for three reasons: 1) Not illegal in both countries 2) US copyright punishment is "unjust or oppressive" 3) An extradition would be "disproportionate" relative to the crime.

I agree with points #2 and #3, but not #1. I think #3 is the strongest argument. Copyright infringement is not a severe enough impediment to other's natural freedoms to merit sending a citizen to a foreign country to face charges.

Absolutely. In this case I think it is possible to argue (rather than it being cut and dried) about the legality in the UK - at least to a reasonable degree.

If the judge decides it is then, fine, that's what he rules :)

I agree; #3 is the most compelling. If anything it's the same reason the CPS declined a UK prosecution (because to do so would be disproportionate).

This whole thing is nuts. A case where there are proportionally as many UK victims as US victims, but the UK declines to prosecute should not be eligible for extradition. It does't pass a stink test, nor a "disproportionate" test.

"Extradition requires that the crime is also a crime under the local laws."

We should perhaps also require that the likely punishment be comparable.

That point ignores that in the UK he would receive a reasonable fine, whereas in the US he will possibly be fined $150.000 per infringement or face a prison sentence.

So people can be jailed for copyright violations now? What happens to a corporation when it violates copyright? Seems we should all become corporations simply as insurance.

Now? Criminal copyright infringement possibly lead to prison time since long before the interwebs existed.

The British goverment has drop its pants.

Dangerous precedent... You have to obey British and USA laws.

His lawyer tried to argue that his offense was not illegal under UK law, among other arguments including that it was disproportionate to his crime to be extradited.

The ruling spends several pages discussing it, and the ruling concludes "Accordingly in my judgement I am satisfied the conduct alleged in the instant request meets the dual criminality test and would be an offence in this jurisdiction."

In other words, he only has to obey British law. The only reason the ruling was in favor of extradition was because the crime he committed is also a British law punishable by at least one year.

However, he hasn't been prosecuted in the UK. Why not?

There's a saying that, if your dog must be shot, it is best to do it yourself. Farming it out makes the act worse, not better.

If a UK citizen is suspected of committing a crime in the UK, (s)he must be tried in the UK under UK law and, if found guilty, punished in the UK. The suspect should never, ever be extradited to a foreign power and punished by them.

It isn't so trivial to say where the crime is committed when the internet is related. He is being prosecuted for facilitating copyright in the United States. The people who committed actual copyright infringement in this case were in the US when they committed their crime, and he was facilitating them remotely.

The issue is being argued the same as if someone was selling pirated CDs in the US, and he was facilitating those people and making money doing so in the UK. Regardless of how you feel about the nature of digital copyright law, it's really not quite as ridiculous as you are making it sound.

Sorry, the idea that people can be extradited for providing directions to websites that enable you to break copy-write, but not say creating a gun which is actually used to kill someone is ridiculous.

I disagree. He's British, and allegedly committed a crime in Britain, against British law. He should be tried and, if found guilty, punished in Britain. Why is that not happening?

It may be the case that he has also committed a crime in the US. If Britain feels that the crime he is supposed to have committed in the US is heinous enough in nature to extradite him, then the proper procedures should be followed of course. However, if the crime is not heinous enough to cause a prosecution of him in Britain, it is not heinous enough to extradite him to the US.

In Thailand, I believe it is illegal to insult the person of the King. If someone in the UK insults the Thai king on the internet in a racially-aggravated way (and funding the site via advertisements), but not heinously enough to cause a prosecution in the UK, should they be extradited to Thailand to face prosecution there? I'd argue that they shouldn't and that this fictitious case is almost identical in nature to the one under discussion.

Your allegory is flawed (I believe) as I cannot imagine how one could facilitate copyright violation for pirating CDs remotely, in a way that is merely speech and is illegal in the host country and would cause extradition to face prosecution. Can you fill that detail in for me?

(The idea that there is a crime of facilitating copyright violation is nauseating, by the way. That's similar to the UK's offence of possessing information that may be of use to a terrorist. In practice, almost anything can be outlawed that way; the law is so broad as to be useless for punishing any single offence and capable of punishing any offence.)

Quite despicable. Potentially ruining somebody's life because of alleged, highly questionable, loss of profit.

I wonder what would have happened had a smaller country made the same request.

Well some European countries have had use the European arrest people for sealing a sheep in poland.

Essential we want to ruin his life over nothing. The net impact of TVshack was certainly not enough to warrant extradition of a foreign citizen and sending him to federal prison. Unfortunately, its impact may have even been positive; encouraging people to be more engaged with new media releases. We're behaving like true bullies on this case and I think it does a lot to tarnish the idea that the US is a resilient country of civilized humans.

It's honestly quite shameful.

There is a Stop Extradition Fair UK Trial for Richard O'Dwyer" petition.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk...

And an e-petition for the amendment of the extradition treaty with the US.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22467

If he was Muslim, the US would probably ship him to straight to gitmo. I'm only half joking.

<rant> I hereby demand that all US citizens that violated the law of any other country to be allow to be extradited into said country.

And also congratulation to "great" Britain to once again confirm that it is nothing more than the US' lap dog. </rant>

I never thought I'd see the day where I'd become embarrassed of my country, but we're moving perilously close to that, in more ways than one.

The extradition treaty between the US and the UK would seem to be bizarre as hell. On the one hand, a person who hacks into US government computer systems isn't extradited, and on the other hand a minor and specious copyright violation does merit extradition.

Gary McKinnon looks all but set to be deported. It's just an incredibly long process of appeals that has stopped it thus far

I'm pretty sure extraditing British citizens to the US for prosecution is illegal. British citizens are subject to British law and British law alone. Hence, he can be prosecuted in a British court and if sentenced he might be extradited to the US but there's no way he can be legally extradited before proven guilty.

If he'd travelled to the USA and committed a crime, that would be one thing.

But he's a British citizen in Britian. He's not subject to US laws, he's subject to British laws.

If the British government can't be bothered to protect its citizens against this kind of overreach, isn't the british government failing at the most basic purpose of a government-- to protect people's rights?

The idea that a .NET or .COM domain name subjects you to US laws is asinine beyond belief. The only degree to which this is true is domain disputes or the management of that domain name. Nothing else.

A big part of the problem here is that US judges have become errand boys for the federal government, and are inclined to let federal prosecutors get away with asinine arguments like the claim that ".COM means US presence.".

> The idea that a .NET or .COM domain name subjects you to US laws is asinine beyond belief. The only degree to which this is true is domain disputes or the management of that domain name. Nothing else.

Especially since .com is supposed to be reserved for international use, whereas .us is intended for US-based (or US-targeted) companies.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of two companies that ever used .us: Delicious and Grouphug (and the former only because of the creative spelling).

I don't mean to be rude, but how is this the top voted comment? Extradition exists for a reason, and this comment lacks a serious depth of thinking and belongs on reddit.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

Form arguments based on the restrictions outlined.

His argument is based around jurisdiction, which is one of the restrictions outlined.

Assume for a moment, that he had stolen money from American Paypal accounts through phishing. Does the argument still make sense? I think is does not. The argument is visceral, nothing more. She makes a straw man argument about '.com' and '.net' that is completely irrelevant, but attracts the pitchforks and fools.

How does the original comment have anything to do with jurisdiction?

I think part of the grandparent posters's complaint is that nirvana's claim seems more like wishful thinking on what nirvana wants the law to be, rather than how it works in practice. The comments below discuss the issues surrounding this extradition, while the top comment is relatively content-free. I'm guessing about this, of course, but if that's what motivated his post I'm inclined to agree.

The extradition treaty is widely thought to be very biased to the USA, legal wording of [1]. The USA DA's office can withhold evidence, and only need to provide reasonable suspicion, but CPS need to provide probable cause. It's difficult to tell if this law will ever be reversed, maybe it will have to wait for the 'special relationship' to weaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

Reply on news.ycombinator.com