Ramblings of an old Doc

 

Richard O’Dwyer just might get extradited.

Ho hum, Doc. Who cares?

Turns out many folks besides his mum and dad. You see, Mr. O’Dwyer is a subject of The Queen. He “provides”, or helps to provide (through an online ‘link site’ – this is hardly parenthetical) movies and TV shows to which he owns no “rights”  by providing these links. Ironically, he’s a student working towards his B.S. degree in “Interactive Media”.

I.C.E. is requesting his deportation to the United States (where he hasn’t been since age 5) for trial: American officials want to try him on charges of criminal copyright infringement and conspiracy.

He, his servers, and the alleged crimes were not perpetrated on U.S. soil. He is requesting trial in the U.K.  In late June 2010, the domain name was seized in a virtual sting by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This was made possible by the fact that all .com and .net domain names are registered through US companies. Since, he has re-established his operation under a similar name.

 

To here the facts.

 

Now, the problem and discussion start. Has a crime been committed? If so, what and where? Who has jurisdiction? Should extradition be used here? Does the alleged crime warrant it since it might not be a crime where he resides?

However, I wish the discussion to go much deeper than the ‘facts’ and legalities. Are we witnessing a revolution in society and economics? You see, in other of my articles, interesting ideas have been raised and not really pursued.

Although we won’t resolve anything as far as determining what will happen to Mr. O’Dwyer, there are further implications which deserve attention: What about the primary providers of these goods to which no rights were obtained? What about international groups of individuals who distribute malware and who steal the money and identities of others? What about groups who hack and steal information? What about Governments which partake in these same or similar activies? 

How should we think of them and what should their disposition be? Are they related to this issue? Should there be international courts to deal with these people and governments? Which laws and rules should govern them?

In the age of the ‘Global Village’, a huge marketplace for ideas, goods and services has been created. Nothing but tree killing snail mail (and me going upstairs) moves ‘slowly’ anymore. What are the norms and rules governing this? Can they even begin to cope with this new borderless creature? Should America become in yet another way “the cops of the world”? Are governments anything but outdated “brick and mortar” in the electronic matrix in which we live?

The debate should be interesting. I hope to learn from all your ideas.

Source:  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/big-content-unveils-latest-antipiracy-weapon-extradition.ars


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jul 22, 2011

The connection, obviously sanctioned by US government, between ICE and the entertainment industry is not clearly explained. Mind you, England and Australia are the old World War l, ll and Cold War allies, not quite policing the world. Don't think China or Russia would be that welcoming.

I wonder how long would US companies will hang on to full control of the domain names registration rights and DNS. So much for the WorldWideWeb, a freebie from a British inventor.

on Jul 22, 2011

And why aren't they (iCE) going after the very large number of 'people' doing outright pirating of intellectual property in China?  Its this another example of , screw the small fry? 

on Jul 22, 2011

ElanaAhova
And why aren't they (iCE) going after the very large number of 'people' doing outright pirating of intellectual property in China?  Its this another example of , screw the small fry? 

Because they have no enforcement authority in China?  The host government has to be willing to cooperate, no?  A not insignificant part of China's growth over the last two decades has been based on NOT enforcing patents/copyrights.  Why on earth would they get involved when there is no national incentive (or significant enough international pressure) to do so?

 

on Jul 22, 2011

StephanA
The connection, obviously sanctioned by US government, between ICE and the entertainment industry is not clearly explained.

It's funny how ICE got involved in the first place.  Before the Department of Homeland Security was created, all these little branches of the government operated independently.  US Customs (& Border Protection) did their thing, US Immigration and Naturalization did their thing, and the FBI handled legalities such as copyright violations for the film and music industries.

After the DoHS was created, US Customs and Immigration, since they did similar (though not the same) tasks, they were merged to become ICE.  US Customs, since the very beginning, has the wordage spelled out in their charter that they can search and seize your property without any reason at all.  This basically allows them to do their job.  If you're ever stopped by a customs agent, all of your stuff belongs to the agency at that point and you have no rights to it no matter how much you complain or threaten legal action.  It's simply just not yours anymore.  The thing was, customs agents weren't technically allowed to operate outside of the US or it's territories unless specifically requested by another government.  The FBI has that same problem, thus always using InterPol for assistance to things outside the US.  Immigration on the other hand, IS allowed to operate on foreign soil as part of their responsibilities to prevent illegal immigration.  For example, they are allowed to operate in Mexico to discover the source of smuggling rings and shut them down, though with notifications to and assistance from the Mexican government, of course, which happens every single time, I'm sure. /sarcasm

At the creation of ICE, a fun little technicality was created.  Agents, who are able to search and seize property at their discretion, could now also operate on foreign soil, and agents who operated on foreign soil are now allowed to search and seize what they want, when they want it.  Also, under the rules of cooperation established by the DoHS, the FBI can now utilize ICE to handle their cases.  This is why you see an FBI warning at the beginning of movies warning about copyright infringement, yet it's ICE that is shutting down websites regardless of where the hosting server is, and without a warrant or other legal notifications...

Personally, I think it's wrong that my government created a legal loophole by merging two agencies that were created separately for the very reason of avoiding that loophole...  And then exploiting it under the play nice with other agencies mandate.

 

ElanaAhova
why aren't they (iCE) going after the very large number of 'people' doing outright pirating of intellectual property in China?

Because ICE doesn't really give a crap, it's not their job.  It's the FBI pulling the strings, and ICE only listens when they are pressured to do so.

Kantok
Because they have no enforcement authority in China? The host government has to be willing to cooperate, no?

They actually do have the authority.  The Chinese Government also has the authority to prevent their entry as does any other country.  Other countries like the UK will allow it, though.

on Jul 22, 2011

Stant123

They actually do have the authority.  The Chinese Government also has the authority to prevent their entry as does any other country.  Other countries like the UK will allow it, though.

While semantically different it amounts to the same thing.  They need the cooperation of the host government to operate and in general China has no reason to give it.

on Jul 22, 2011

#1 - Why the hell is ICE involved?

#2 - They are attempting to set a deadly precedent.  One that could be used to indict and deport any american citizen.  They apparently do not think about that (but then thinking and government in the same sentence are oxymorons).

#3 - Linking is not distributing.  Google and Bing better be very afraid if that is the case.

For once, I would love for a foreign country to tell off the US.  This is clearly a case of US imperialism, and it could only come under a democrat president.

Stant123
US Customs, since the very beginning, has the wordage spelled out in their charter that they can search and seize your property without any reason at all. This basically allows them to do their job. If you're ever stopped by a customs agent, all of your stuff belongs to the agency at that point and you have no rights to it no matter how much you complain or threaten legal action.

Actually you do.  And as soon as they seize property that is someones with some connections, it is headed to SCOTUS.  it violates the 4th Amendment.  No law, or executive order can over turn the constitution.

on Jul 22, 2011

Obviously, they would want cooperation, but it's not a requirement.

Dr Guy
it violates the 4th Amendment.

Except that it doesn't since the supreme court recognizes that this agency must violate it to do their job and thus allows them to.  The 4th and 9th circuit court of appeals have even established that they don't need your permission to access your personal electronic devices.

See United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004), United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985), and United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).

and

See United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir., 2005) and United States v. Arnold, (9th Cir., 2008)

on Jul 22, 2011

I think that there needs to be some sort of cooperation between countries with internet but I do not agree with extraditing to where you have the strongest laws against whatever law. This person should be tried where they reside. Is that not what "jury of peers" actually means?

I also find it a little disturbing how a few judges are allow to rewrite or outright throw out the constitution.

on Jul 22, 2011

Yeah I really fail to understand why he needs to be extradited. Granted I've never heard of the guy or know exactly how large his operation was, but I would think the U.K. is perfectly capable of trying a case of US copyright infringement by one of its citizens. Why the heck are we wasting tax dollars to try and get this guy sent over here (at our expense), where we will then have to pay to detain him.

on Jul 22, 2011

Stant123
Except that it doesn't since the supreme court recognizes that this agency must violate it to do their job and thus allows them to. The 4th and 9th circuit court of appeals have even established that they don't need your permission to access your personal electronic devices.

Accessing your devices, while contrary to the 4th is not the same as seizing property.  I also note it has not gone to the SCOTUS yet.  But even if it does, it is a very narrow ruling.  However, seizing property cannot be ruled constitutional as it may be ICE now, but why stop there?  if it is not over turned, we may as well toss the whole constitution out.

on Jul 22, 2011

to find this again

on Jul 22, 2011

I'm sure there is more to the story.

Regarding the "small fry", we're not small at all.  We or anyone paying tax, here or abroad, finance ICE (and other departments of the State), so therefore we are very much involved in their activities.

Isn't freedom grand?

-.-

on Jul 23, 2011

I was hoping folks would relate to the questions I posed at the end of the post....

on Jul 23, 2011

Technically, we've been discussing these:

Can they even begin to cope with this new borderless creature? Should America become in yet another way “the cops of the world”?

Ultimately, I think everyone who has posted thus far is somewhere between upset and disgusted with the way the US has been handling things.

on Jul 23, 2011

Was there a crime? Where? Who should prosecute? How does this relate to IP rights?

For instance, not all IP rights protection is necessarily beneficial.... take for example "Gene Patenting". Various companies have patented detection of possibly dangerous genes such as the BRCA (breast cancer) gene, and others (Polycystic Kidney Disease, etc.) and made research into possible cures vulnerable to litigation, while doing no research into possible cures themselves.

Some are beneficial such as the protection of artistic creations (there are many, just mentioning one germane to us, here). Doesn't this 'little guy' deserve protection?

I'm hoping for discussion rather than anger, although the subject is charged...

3 Pages1 2 3