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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jul 27, 2011

myfist0
I guess the next G20 summit in Canada will now have UN jackboot thugs bashing me on the head and my government will not even be allowed to investigate.

Sadly, the RIAA and MPAA are increasingly using law enforcement agencies as thugs to uphold/enforce their view of things.  Some years ago copyright infringement was a civil matter and prosecuted by the copyright holder... however, dissatisfied with their own efforts and the huge costs involved in bringing violators before the courts, the RIAA and MPIAA has conned the US government into wearing the jack boots and stomping heads for them.

What is so despicable about the whole thing is that these film and music associations do not truly represent the artists they claim to represent but rather have created a whole new industry of litigation to support themselves and bunches of lawyers.  If these parasites actually represented the people they claim to it wouldn't be so bad, but when major artists [Jagger, Springstein, McCartney, Clapton, and others] all condemn these associations and their methods and practices, the greed that drives it, you can bet your sweet bippy the true owners of the material [the artists] are not the primary focus here and see very little of these prosecutions/court settlements.

on Jul 27, 2011

DrJBHL
I do support copyright protection, but not where it prevents people from lifesaving treatment.

I am sorry - we will just disagree.  Again, there are no guarantees in life, and so the best you can actually say is that the cure has the potential.  But that is still irrelevant.  it was not your time and talent or mine that created it.  If you believe in copyrights, then you would agree (I did not say like) with patent sitting.  it is theirs to do with as they please.  Do not like it?  Get rid of it for all.  I do not think an artists time is more valuable than a neurosurgeons, but your valuation system gives that weight - because of the situation - which is the definition of situational ethics.

on Jul 27, 2011

starkers
Dunno about a country, but an Aussie court told the US to piss off with regard to iinet.com.au.

Way to Go Oz!  I think the issues should be discussed and agreed to by nations, but not dictated to by one nation.  Glad that some see it that way.

starkers
As for this bloke in England, throw the book at him... in his own country.

I think they would have to change the law that said links are illegal, but that is their right to do so.  And I agree.

on Jul 28, 2011

Dr Guy
Quoting starkers,
reply 25
As for this bloke in England, throw the book at him... in his own country.

I think they would have to change the law that said links are illegal, but that is their right to do so. And I agree.

That's my whole point... that international boundaries and national sovereignity must be respected at all times.

For example [and this is a general question/response, not a personal one], if you did something that was a crime in Nth Korea or Iran, for example, would you want law enforcement squads from those countries arresting you on your home soil with the intent to try you there?   Firstly, what is a crime in those countries may not be a crime in your own... and secondly, does their jurisdiction extend to your neck of the woods? 

Probably not, and that is why the US must not be permitted to enforce/impose its will on other sovereign nations.  If lawful agreements cannot be reached in some instances, so be it and move on... prolonged attacks on the laws and ideals of other nations will soon wear thin and garner little sympathy for the US, if any at all from some quarters.  Put bluntly, the RIAA and MPIAA are not doing the US government [the entire US image] any favours, by implicating official government agencies in what essentially are civil matters.

This Case Is Going To Cause Problems

Yes, and the main reason for that is a moving of the goal posts and a blurring of the lines between what are civil and criminal matters... then using US Government agencies to enforce the will of US corporate entities on foreign soil.  That is clearly wrong, and if the shoe were on the other foot the US would not tolerate it... foreigners making demands on their home soil.

Furthermore, I know that Americans are touchy about their taxes [what they are spent on] and this is a clear case of taxpayers money being used for corporate purposes rather than the common good.  So why aren't US citizens jumping up and down about the misappropriation of their tax dollars?  Moreover, government intervention and/or control is frowned upon by most in the US, so why is it okay for the US government to be involved in such [civil] matters?  Is is okay because it's overseas and conquering foreigners while they're doing that they're leaving you alone?

In short, the US image is looking quite low worldwide, and wrongs such as these need to be righted before the citizens of this world hold it in any higher esteem again. 

 

on Jul 28, 2011

I just looked up where offices of the FBI are and holy crap, they are everywhere 
http://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/legat

 

Preventing intellectual property theft is a top priority of the FBI’s cyber program. We specifically focus on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers' health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to our success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr 

 

Operation Fastlink has resulted in more than 120 search warrants executed in 12 countries; the confiscation of hundreds of computers and illegal online distribution hubs; and the removal of more than $50 million worth of illegally copied software, games, movies and music from illicit distribution channels. Operation Fastlink is the culmination of multiple FBI undercover investigations targeting individuals involved in the illegal reproduction and distribution of movies, games, business software and music.

Operation Fastlink was conducted by the FBI, including the New Haven Field Office in coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut and the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS). This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Chang and Senior Counsel Clement McGovern of CCIPS.
http://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-releases/2009/nh030609b.htm/ 

 

on Jul 28, 2011

Darvin3
Also incorrect; once sold, copyright is exhausted. You can create copies for personal use as much as you like, so long as you don't distribute them to other people.

No...that is NOW incorrect as pertaining to Australia.  Prior to a few years ago it WAS CORRECT.

Prior to that bloody fair-trade agreement between Howard and Bush it WAS illegal to make backup copies of your media in Australia.

NOW, however we [Oz] match the US 'version' of Copyright Law so it's allowed.

on Jul 28, 2011

starkers
For example [and this is a general question/response, not a personal one], if you did something that was a crime in Nth Korea or Iran, for example, would you want law enforcement squads from those countries arresting you on your home soil with the intent to try you there? Firstly, what is a crime in those countries may not be a crime in your own... and secondly, does their jurisdiction extend to your neck of the woods?

Extremes sometimes do make very good examples - and you gave an excellent one!

How about this one.  An American spies on China, gets the goods and gets home.  China finds out and comes here and arrests him and executes him. 

No...that is NOW incorrect as pertaining to Australia. Prior to a few years ago it WAS CORRECT.

Prior to that bloody fair-trade agreement between Howard and Bush it WAS illegal to make backup copies of your media in Australia.

NOW, however we [Oz] match the US 'version' of Copyright Law so it's allowed.

It is allowed, but they prevent you from doing it.  And the government does nothing to stop them from interfering with YOUR rights.

3 Pages1 2 3