[Extradition] U.K. Citizen faces up to 10 years in U.S. jail because of his stream site

Bagginses

CasedOut wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

Fallout2man wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

What if the grower took orders from the US himself and hired people to smuggle it in? Hell, what about wire and identity fraud based out of African nations that don't have up to date laws for that sort of thing?

1: Multi-state solution, in that case there's an established business relationship. But this still would need to be provable in a court of law. Are you saying in this case there's evidence that this guy was directly responsible for using money to hire other people to commit crimes here?

2: Wire/Identity fraud are tragedies and having worked E-commerce before I feel sorry for people who face these problems but realistically what are we going to do other than perhaps re-regulate banking here to make that very difficult to get away with effectively?
Wire Fraud is a banking problem and it unfortunately can't be settled without some sort of global framework to regulate the banks. Doing anything else is just going to be a lopsided approach to justice and most likely be practiced very unfairly.

If someone intentionally abuses the limitations of our borders to organize crimes here then there is always some merit to extradition. However in this case as far as I'm aware this guy just ran a site that linked to TV episodes elsewhere on the web and did it for his own enjoyment. This hardly fits any scenario where he's evily trying to destroy our entertainment industry and of course IP law in general being what it is, makes this extradition even more odious.

I don't think any of that actually touches my argument.

I think you missed the most relevant part of one of falloutmans earlier arguments. He made a website in his country that for all intents and purposes he couldn't stop people in the United States from accessing.

Ideally, he should have put an IP block up for the US, but it does seem like the law is being badly applied. I'm more worried about the people who seem to think that standing on one side of a border means that you can use money and telecommunications to break the law on the other.

CasedOut

Bagginses wrote:

CasedOut wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

Fallout2man wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

What if the grower took orders from the US himself and hired people to smuggle it in? Hell, what about wire and identity fraud based out of African nations that don't have up to date laws for that sort of thing?

1: Multi-state solution, in that case there's an established business relationship. But this still would need to be provable in a court of law. Are you saying in this case there's evidence that this guy was directly responsible for using money to hire other people to commit crimes here?

2: Wire/Identity fraud are tragedies and having worked E-commerce before I feel sorry for people who face these problems but realistically what are we going to do other than perhaps re-regulate banking here to make that very difficult to get away with effectively?
Wire Fraud is a banking problem and it unfortunately can't be settled without some sort of global framework to regulate the banks. Doing anything else is just going to be a lopsided approach to justice and most likely be practiced very unfairly.

If someone intentionally abuses the limitations of our borders to organize crimes here then there is always some merit to extradition. However in this case as far as I'm aware this guy just ran a site that linked to TV episodes elsewhere on the web and did it for his own enjoyment. This hardly fits any scenario where he's evily trying to destroy our entertainment industry and of course IP law in general being what it is, makes this extradition even more odious.

I don't think any of that actually touches my argument.

I think you missed the most relevant part of one of falloutmans earlier arguments. He made a website in his country that for all intents and purposes he couldn't stop people in the United States from accessing.

Ideally, he should have put an IP block up for the US, but it does seem like the law is being badly applied. I'm more worried about the people who seem to think that standing on one side of a border means that you can use money and telecommunications to break the law on the other.

But why is that his responsibility? Should it not be the responsibility of US citizens to not use the site? How can the united states effectively legislate what someone does in another country?

Bagginses

CasedOut wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

CasedOut wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

Fallout2man wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

What if the grower took orders from the US himself and hired people to smuggle it in? Hell, what about wire and identity fraud based out of African nations that don't have up to date laws for that sort of thing?

1: Multi-state solution, in that case there's an established business relationship. But this still would need to be provable in a court of law. Are you saying in this case there's evidence that this guy was directly responsible for using money to hire other people to commit crimes here?

2: Wire/Identity fraud are tragedies and having worked E-commerce before I feel sorry for people who face these problems but realistically what are we going to do other than perhaps re-regulate banking here to make that very difficult to get away with effectively?
Wire Fraud is a banking problem and it unfortunately can't be settled without some sort of global framework to regulate the banks. Doing anything else is just going to be a lopsided approach to justice and most likely be practiced very unfairly.

If someone intentionally abuses the limitations of our borders to organize crimes here then there is always some merit to extradition. However in this case as far as I'm aware this guy just ran a site that linked to TV episodes elsewhere on the web and did it for his own enjoyment. This hardly fits any scenario where he's evily trying to destroy our entertainment industry and of course IP law in general being what it is, makes this extradition even more odious.

I don't think any of that actually touches my argument.

I think you missed the most relevant part of one of falloutmans earlier arguments. He made a website in his country that for all intents and purposes he couldn't stop people in the United States from accessing.

Ideally, he should have put an IP block up for the US, but it does seem like the law is being badly applied. I'm more worried about the people who seem to think that standing on one side of a border means that you can use money and telecommunications to break the law on the other.

But why is that his responsibility? Should it not be the responsibility of US citizens to not use the site? How can the united states effectively legislate what someone does in another country?

Because his operations extended into the US. See my RC drone example. Hell, could I hire an assassin to kill an Englishman without worrying about extradition?

Fallout2man

Bagginses wrote:

Ideally, he should have put an IP block up for the US, but it does seem like the law is being badly applied. I'm more worried about the people who seem to think that standing on one side of a border means that you can use money and telecommunications to break the law on the other.

IP blocks are ineffective or expensive. Who is going to do this, why should he? If it's illegal only here then the U.S.A. should have the balls to pay like China does to filter its own Internet. He is not trying to commit a crime here, he is not even willfully looking the other way like a gun dealer who doesn't do background checks. He cannot operate his website regularly and legally as he would like while disallowing Americans or people elsewhere from accessing it. So by saying he should? Or by requiring he take efforts to do this? We are quite clearly saying our law trumps his nation's law and that he has to follow our Internet laws as well as those of his own country. But us? We're fine with just ours!

That's a new form of Imperialism right there, and a pretty awful one too. The Internet unfortunately works very differently from a physical business so analogs of physical business relationships often fail to capture something very fundamental about the nature of the internet: Which is that it is entirely voluntary. Physical businesses which deal in cash transactions? Not so much, that's more institutional coercion and an entirely different affair then a free association.

Xaev

Bagginses wrote:

CasedOut wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

CasedOut wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

Fallout2man wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

What if the grower took orders from the US himself and hired people to smuggle it in? Hell, what about wire and identity fraud based out of African nations that don't have up to date laws for that sort of thing?

1: Multi-state solution, in that case there's an established business relationship. But this still would need to be provable in a court of law. Are you saying in this case there's evidence that this guy was directly responsible for using money to hire other people to commit crimes here?

2: Wire/Identity fraud are tragedies and having worked E-commerce before I feel sorry for people who face these problems but realistically what are we going to do other than perhaps re-regulate banking here to make that very difficult to get away with effectively?
Wire Fraud is a banking problem and it unfortunately can't be settled without some sort of global framework to regulate the banks. Doing anything else is just going to be a lopsided approach to justice and most likely be practiced very unfairly.

If someone intentionally abuses the limitations of our borders to organize crimes here then there is always some merit to extradition. However in this case as far as I'm aware this guy just ran a site that linked to TV episodes elsewhere on the web and did it for his own enjoyment. This hardly fits any scenario where he's evily trying to destroy our entertainment industry and of course IP law in general being what it is, makes this extradition even more odious.

I don't think any of that actually touches my argument.

I think you missed the most relevant part of one of falloutmans earlier arguments. He made a website in his country that for all intents and purposes he couldn't stop people in the United States from accessing.

Ideally, he should have put an IP block up for the US, but it does seem like the law is being badly applied. I'm more worried about the people who seem to think that standing on one side of a border means that you can use money and telecommunications to break the law on the other.

But why is that his responsibility? Should it not be the responsibility of US citizens to not use the site? How can the united states effectively legislate what someone does in another country?

Because his operations extended into the US. See my RC drone example. Hell, could I hire an assassin to kill an Englishman without worrying about extradition?

No, because hiring an assassin is illegal in the US as well.

Lilnoobs

How is hiring an assassin even a comparison to streaming media?

Panda4You

Lilnoobs wrote:

How is hiring an assassin even a comparison to streaming media?

You wouldn't download a [premeditated homicide]

finnith

What if a US citizen stole a British car? Does that count?

Quid

Panda4You wrote:

Lilnoobs wrote:

How is hiring an assassin even a comparison to streaming media?

You wouldn't download a [premeditated homicide]

Can... can I?

AngelHedgie

Fallout2man wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

My only problem is with the idea that standing on the other side of an invisible line on the ground makes you "safe" when your activities extend across that line. You can (and probably should) argue against the law, but the fact is that his operations extended into the US and violated US laws on US soil.

The Internet makes this a real problem. Imagine in Mexico drugs are legal, and here they are illegal. This is like us sending in Seal Team six to firebomb Mexican plantations because we got tired of arresting stoners crossing the border with pot. How in that case is it the fault of the grower? If what he did is legal in the U.K. then it shouldn't matter that the internet crosses borders, because the internet requires you to request something before it arrives. This means that it's no where near the same as attempting to say, shoot someone from one side of the border. Because he nor anything he did can cross a border without it first being requested directly from someone else on other the side of that border. Plus filtering it by nationality would either be too costly or really ineffective and utterly useless. So it's not like he could've realistically done anything to prevent the site from being viewed elsewhere that would both be effective and allow his web page to remain free.

Wow, it's like there's no existing legal doctrine to determine if someone's activity can be construed to take place in a specific jurisdiction.

poshniallo

Panda4You wrote:

Lilnoobs wrote:

How is hiring an assassin even a comparison to streaming media?

You wouldn't download a [premeditated homicide]

Would if I could.

Bagginses

Xaev wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

CasedOut wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

CasedOut wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

Fallout2man wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

What if the grower took orders from the US himself and hired people to smuggle it in? Hell, what about wire and identity fraud based out of African nations that don't have up to date laws for that sort of thing?

1: Multi-state solution, in that case there's an established business relationship. But this still would need to be provable in a court of law. Are you saying in this case there's evidence that this guy was directly responsible for using money to hire other people to commit crimes here?

2: Wire/Identity fraud are tragedies and having worked E-commerce before I feel sorry for people who face these problems but realistically what are we going to do other than perhaps re-regulate banking here to make that very difficult to get away with effectively?
Wire Fraud is a banking problem and it unfortunately can't be settled without some sort of global framework to regulate the banks. Doing anything else is just going to be a lopsided approach to justice and most likely be practiced very unfairly.

If someone intentionally abuses the limitations of our borders to organize crimes here then there is always some merit to extradition. However in this case as far as I'm aware this guy just ran a site that linked to TV episodes elsewhere on the web and did it for his own enjoyment. This hardly fits any scenario where he's evily trying to destroy our entertainment industry and of course IP law in general being what it is, makes this extradition even more odious.

I don't think any of that actually touches my argument.

I think you missed the most relevant part of one of falloutmans earlier arguments. He made a website in his country that for all intents and purposes he couldn't stop people in the United States from accessing.

Ideally, he should have put an IP block up for the US, but it does seem like the law is being badly applied. I'm more worried about the people who seem to think that standing on one side of a border means that you can use money and telecommunications to break the law on the other.

But why is that his responsibility? Should it not be the responsibility of US citizens to not use the site? How can the united states effectively legislate what someone does in another country?

Because his operations extended into the US. See my RC drone example. Hell, could I hire an assassin to kill an Englishman without worrying about extradition?

No, because hiring an assassin is illegal in the US as well.

CasedOut

AngelHedgie wrote:

Fallout2man wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

My only problem is with the idea that standing on the other side of an invisible line on the ground makes you "safe" when your activities extend across that line. You can (and probably should) argue against the law, but the fact is that his operations extended into the US and violated US laws on US soil.

The Internet makes this a real problem. Imagine in Mexico drugs are legal, and here they are illegal. This is like us sending in Seal Team six to firebomb Mexican plantations because we got tired of arresting stoners crossing the border with pot. How in that case is it the fault of the grower? If what he did is legal in the U.K. then it shouldn't matter that the internet crosses borders, because the internet requires you to request something before it arrives. This means that it's no where near the same as attempting to say, shoot someone from one side of the border. Because he nor anything he did can cross a border without it first being requested directly from someone else on other the side of that border. Plus filtering it by nationality would either be too costly or really ineffective and utterly useless. So it's not like he could've realistically done anything to prevent the site from being viewed elsewhere that would both be effective and allow his web page to remain free.

Wow, it's like there's no existing legal doctrine to determine if someone's activity can be construed to take place in a specific jurisdiction.

So does this case meet the minimum sufficient contacts requirement? It seems to me like it does not but I am not sure.

Modern Man

Bagginses wrote:

Mojo_Jojo wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

Mojo_Jojo wrote:

It is really horrifying that he's having to appeal this. The media coverage has been a bit slanted on it. There's been no real commentary on just why it's not okay to extradite people to any countries where their actions could have been considered a crime. While that should be self evident, I've not getting that impression from what I've been reading.

It makes a lot more sense when you remember that you can organize or prepare something from outside of a country. Would you feel the same if he'd mailed anthrax, a bomb, or cocaine into the US? hell, I doubt anything Osama did was illegal in Taliban Afghanistan.

My God, you're right. We'll send you everybody who bought booze before they turned 21 over here too.

If you're mail ordering it from the US. I mean, we've been dealing with Britain's bullshit of announcing jurisdiction of libel suits for any book anyone has ever brought into Britain. The reason he's being charged by the US is because his activities extended to the US. You can't just use an RC to commit crimes across the border and not expect to be charged.

I don't think it's particularly relevant whether his actions were illegal in the US. The courts in the UK should only be concerned if what he did was illegal there.

I have serious problems with allowing extradition for something that isn't illegal in the country being asked to extradite someone. If an American mails holocaust-denial literature to Germany, would you be okay with American courts extraditing him to that country for prosecution?

Fallout2man

AngelHedgie wrote:

Wow, it's like there's no existing legal doctrine to determine if someone's activity can be construed to take place in a specific jurisdiction.

Which was meant to handle business relationships and not voluntary free-associations of people who are largely committing what could only be the flimsiest of crimes in one country. I'm sorry but the extradition is B.S. and it was done because we wanted to scare people abroad from thinking that they aren't subject to U.S. IP law. Making a website that happens to be available in the U.S.A. even if he had to incidentally do some business with U.S. companies to get a domain name or whatever else, should not constitute sufficient minimal contacts because the process is standard operation for just about any and all websites so it's not like he went out of his way to engage American businesses in some kind of crime.

Johannen

electricitylikesme wrote:

zeeny wrote:

I commented on it in chat couple of days ago. It's the single dumbest ruling I've seen. The UK should be disbanded as a country and accepted into the Union.

This is a pretty failed hyperbole.

Actually a much better prospect for the UK would be to become the old Switzerland of Europe. Just a giant European bank which cuts off ties to Europe and America when it comes to law and power and run as it's own entity.

The idea that it should disband and be engulfed into the horrificaly failing EU is idiotic and just a blank general statement to stir up a response.

zeeny

Johannen wrote:

electricitylikesme wrote:

zeeny wrote:

I commented on it in chat couple of days ago. It's the single dumbest ruling I've seen. The UK should be disbanded as a country and accepted into the Union.

This is a pretty failed hyperbole.

Actually a much better prospect for the UK would be to become the old Switzerland of Europe. Just a giant European bank which cuts off ties to Europe and America when it comes to law and power and run as it's own entity.

The idea that it should disband and be engulfed into the horrificaly failing EU is idiotic and just a blank general statement to stir up a response.

Reading comprehension?

PantsB

One thing to note - O'Dwyer was making $15,000+ GDP a month(230K overall) for his website on advertisements. This wasn't a kid with a hobby, it was a kid making a small fortune.


It would probably be good to link to the actual ruling instead of newspapers right?

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf

7. Extradition – Offence/Dual Criminality.
S.78 (4)(b) Ex Act 2003 requires this court to be satisfied the conduct involved if committed in the U.K. would be an offence against the criminal law. Specifically
S.137 (2) (b) requires:
“the conduct would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom punishable with imprisonment for a term of 12 months or a greater punishment”.
Mr Jones contends the substantive offence would be one contrary to 107(2A) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
....
I have endeavoured to weigh these subtle distinctions. The diagrams of how as a matter of electronic mechanics (if I may term it) the TVShack websites actually operated favour HHJ Ticehurst’s restrictive construction. To my mind there is much in the distinction factually, always remembering these matters are allegations of conduct which a trial court alone can resolve – that Mr Jones contends between the instant matter and Rock & Overton. I also have in mind the mischief Parliament had in mind. 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.

He also complained in a very British way about the newspapers reporting inaccurate information regarding this point.

There are said to be direct consequences of criminal activity by Richard O’Dwyer in the U.S.A. albeit by him never leaving the north of England. Such a state of affairs does not demand a trial here if the competent U.K. authorities decline to act and does, in my judgement, permit one in the U.S.A.

So despite what people above are saying, the Judge ruled that his actions were in violation of UK law and since they had an impact in the United States he can be extradited for trial there. If his actions were legal in the UK he could not be.

Dis'

Johannen wrote:

electricitylikesme wrote:

zeeny wrote:

I commented on it in chat couple of days ago. It's the single dumbest ruling I've seen. The UK should be disbanded as a country and accepted into the Union.

This is a pretty failed hyperbole.

Actually a much better prospect for the UK would be to become the old Switzerland of Europe. Just a giant European bank which cuts off ties to Europe and America when it comes to law and power and run as it's own entity.

The idea that it should disband and be engulfed into the horrificaly failing EU is idiotic and just a blank general statement to stir up a response.

Also there's already a Switzerland of Europe that does just that - Switzerland. They're better at it than we'll ever be thanks to all this post-industrial legacy stuff.

zeeny

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf



“A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work in public
(a) in the course of business, or
(b) otherwise than in the course of business but to such an extent as to affect
prejudicially the owner of the copyright commits an offence if he knows or
has reason to believe that, by doing so he is infringing copyright in that
work”.

Yeah, you are probably right. This judge was deluded. This won't stand on appeal.

mrt144

Bagginses wrote:

CasedOut wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

CasedOut wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

Fallout2man wrote:

Bagginses wrote:

What if the grower took orders from the US himself and hired people to smuggle it in? Hell, what about wire and identity fraud based out of African nations that don't have up to date laws for that sort of thing?

1: Multi-state solution, in that case there's an established business relationship. But this still would need to be provable in a court of law. Are you saying in this case there's evidence that this guy was directly responsible for using money to hire other people to commit crimes here?

2: Wire/Identity fraud are tragedies and having worked E-commerce before I feel sorry for people who face these problems but realistically what are we going to do other than perhaps re-regulate banking here to make that very difficult to get away with effectively?
Wire Fraud is a banking problem and it unfortunately can't be settled without some sort of global framework to regulate the banks. Doing anything else is just going to be a lopsided approach to justice and most likely be practiced very unfairly.

If someone intentionally abuses the limitations of our borders to organize crimes here then there is always some merit to extradition. However in this case as far as I'm aware this guy just ran a site that linked to TV episodes elsewhere on the web and did it for his own enjoyment. This hardly fits any scenario where he's evily trying to destroy our entertainment industry and of course IP law in general being what it is, makes this extradition even more odious.

I don't think any of that actually touches my argument.

I think you missed the most relevant part of one of falloutmans earlier arguments. He made a website in his country that for all intents and purposes he couldn't stop people in the United States from accessing.

Ideally, he should have put an IP block up for the US, but it does seem like the law is being badly applied. I'm more worried about the people who seem to think that standing on one side of a border means that you can use money and telecommunications to break the law on the other.

But why is that his responsibility? Should it not be the responsibility of US citizens to not use the site? How can the united states effectively legislate what someone does in another country?

Because his operations extended into the US. See my RC drone example. Hell, could I hire an assassin to kill an Englishman without worrying about extradition?

I think you're getting hung up on something here and it's extradition agreements existing in the first place and the logic in them.

Why should you extradite someone for a crime in another country when said action is not a crime in your country, and the purported crime didn't even take place in the other country? There isn't a rational basis to do so as far as I can tell.

TetraNitroCubane

This isn't the main story of the thread, but I'd say it's highly related. Today the FBI shut down the file hosting site MegaUpload after it's owner/founder was arrested in New Zealand at the request of the US Government.

One of the world’s largest file-sharing sites was shut down Thursday, and its founder and several company executives were charged with violating piracy laws, federal prosecutors said.

An indictment accuses Megaupload.com of costing copyright holders more than $500 million in lost revenue from pirated films and other content. The indictment was unsealed one day after websites including Wikipedia and Craigslist shut down in protest of two congressional proposals intended to thwart online piracy.

The Justice Department said in a statement said that Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and three others were arrested Thursday in New Zealand at the request of U.S. officials. Two other defendants are at large.

Megaupload was unique not only because of its massive size and the volume of downloaded content, but also because it had high-profile support from celebrities, musicians and other content producers who are most often the victims of copyright infringement and piracy. Before the website was taken down, it contained endorsements from Kim Kardashian, Alicia Keys and Kanye West, among others.

It's notable that MegaUpload was known for being extremely timely with DMCA takedowns upon request, and that their website was used for the distribution of many legitimate files. There have been other grumblings about Schmitz being involved in money laundering, though, so this story might be deeper than it looks on the surface.

12gauge

TetraNitroCubane wrote:

This isn't the main story of the thread, but I'd say it's highly related. Today the FBI shut down the file hosting site MegaUpload after it's owner/founder was arrested in New Zealand at the request of the US Government.

One of the world’s largest file-sharing sites was shut down Thursday, and its founder and several company executives were charged with violating piracy laws, federal prosecutors said.

An indictment accuses Megaupload.com of costing copyright holders more than $500 million in lost revenue from pirated films and other content. The indictment was unsealed one day after websites including Wikipedia and Craigslist shut down in protest of two congressional proposals intended to thwart online piracy.

The Justice Department said in a statement said that Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and three others were arrested Thursday in New Zealand at the request of U.S. officials. Two other defendants are at large.

Megaupload was unique not only because of its massive size and the volume of downloaded content, but also because it had high-profile support from celebrities, musicians and other content producers who are most often the victims of copyright infringement and piracy. Before the website was taken down, it contained endorsements from Kim Kardashian, Alicia Keys and Kanye West, among others.

It's notable that MegaUpload was known for being extremely timely with DMCA takedowns upon request, and that their website was used for the distribution of many legitimate files. There have been other grumblings about Schmitz being involved in money laundering, though, so this story might be deeper than it looks on the surface.

Kim Schmitz is shady as hell though, judging by the news I have read about him in all the years.

PolloDiablo

It's still pretty fucked up.

TetraNitroCubane

12gauge wrote:

Kim Schmitz is shady as hell though, judging by the news I have read about him in all the years.

Absolutely and without a doubt true. However, from what we've heard so far, he's being extradited from New Zealand because of supposed crimes committed on MegaUpload (a Hong Kong based website) at the request of the US government. Also, by all accounts, MU has always responded in a timely manner to all DMCA requests. There's no way that MU can monitor everything uploaded to their servers, but they've arrested Schmitz based on copyright infringement via MegaUpload here.

His other shady dealings aside, is that really fair?

psyck0

Since when has the US government or the DoJ cared about fair, especially with regards to the internet, a thing they don't even begin to understand?

12gauge

TetraNitroCubane wrote:

12gauge wrote:

Kim Schmitz is shady as hell though, judging by the news I have read about him in all the years.

Absolutely and without a doubt true. However, from what we've heard so far, he's being extradited from New Zealand because of supposed crimes committed on MegaUpload (a Hong Kong based website) at the request of the US government. Also, by all accounts, MU has always responded in a timely manner to all DMCA requests. There's no way that MU can monitor everything uploaded to their servers, but they've arrested Schmitz based on copyright infringement via MegaUpload here.

His other shady dealings aside, is that really fair?

If the MU thing is the only reason, no. Isn't Schmitz still a German citizen? That would mean that the DoJ is arresting a German in New Zealand based charges filed against a business in Hong Kong for an activity illegal in the US (although they tried to comply with regulations).

So Larry Page and Sergej Brin are next? At least the DoJ should get a hold of them easier.

Ritchmeister

At least in the Megaupload case they are actually storing illegal content on their servers unlike the UK case which I find completely incredulous.

Panda4You

Can't help but to think of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky

PantsB

TetraNitroCubane wrote:

12gauge wrote:

Kim Schmitz is shady as hell though, judging by the news I have read about him in all the years.

Absolutely and without a doubt true. However, from what we've heard so far, he's being extradited from New Zealand because of supposed crimes committed on MegaUpload (a Hong Kong based website) at the request of the US government. Also, by all accounts, MU has always responded in a timely manner to all DMCA requests. There's no way that MU can monitor everything uploaded to their servers, but they've arrested Schmitz based on copyright infringement via MegaUpload here.

His other shady dealings aside, is that really fair?

According to the indictment, MegaUpload has servers in Virginia and extradition fundamentally involves someone outside of the extraditing's jurisdiction. The indictment involves copyright violations, racketeering and money laundering. I don't know enough to say whether they are guilty of those things or not but unless one doesn't agree with the concept of extradition as a concept I don't see why they should be immune from it. I shouldn't able to commit fraud on Canadians over the internet and be free from prosecution by pointing out I'm not in Canada.

TetraNitroCubane

PantsB wrote:

TetraNitroCubane wrote:

12gauge wrote:

Kim Schmitz is shady as hell though, judging by the news I have read about him in all the years.

Absolutely and without a doubt true. However, from what we've heard so far, he's being extradited from New Zealand because of supposed crimes committed on MegaUpload (a Hong Kong based website) at the request of the US government. Also, by all accounts, MU has always responded in a timely manner to all DMCA requests. There's no way that MU can monitor everything uploaded to their servers, but they've arrested Schmitz based on copyright infringement via MegaUpload here.

His other shady dealings aside, is that really fair?

According to the indictment, MegaUpload has servers in Virginia and extradition fundamentally involves someone outside of the extraditing's jurisdiction. The indictment involves copyright violations, racketeering and money laundering. I don't know enough to say whether they are guilty of those things or not but unless one doesn't agree with the concept of extradition as a concept I don't see why they should be immune from it. I shouldn't able to commit fraud on Canadians over the internet and be free from prosecution by pointing out I'm not in Canada.

These are details I was unaware of. If the servers were located in Virgina, that changes things considerably. I was under the impression that the servers for Megaupload were in Hong Kong, since the company is based there. The copyright violation charge is a bit specious in my opinion, given the history of MU kowtowing immediately to DMCA requests - But if the arrests are being made with those other charges in mind, then it's a different situation altogether.

Sorry for bringing it up here without doing a bit more research.

Caedwyr

So, when does Youtube get shut down and all it's employees arrested?

Phillishere

Caedwyr wrote:

So, when does Youtube get shut down and all it's employees arrested?

Dropbox needs to go next. Google should soon follow, as a lot of bad shit gets sent through Gmail.

TetraNitroCubane

Caedwyr wrote:

So, when does Youtube get shut down and all it's employees arrested?

When they piss off Universal.

mindspork

Where was tvshack's server? if the googling I'm doing is right it was in Texas.

Fallout2man

Phillishere wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

So, when does Youtube get shut down and all it's employees arrested?

Dropbox needs to go next. Google should soon follow, as a lot of bad shit gets sent through Gmail.

I think Youtube only exists today because Google Capitulated to Viacom and stopped requiring they send takedown notices. (Youtube now filters and disables content automatically.) Seriously, I keep getting this feeling that was the only reason Youtube was allowed to continue to exist.

Edith_Bagot-Dix

Fallout2man wrote:

Phillishere wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

So, when does Youtube get shut down and all it's employees arrested?

Dropbox needs to go next. Google should soon follow, as a lot of bad shit gets sent through Gmail.

I think Youtube only exists today because Google Capitulated to Viacom and stopped requiring they send takedown notices. (Youtube now filters and disables content automatically.) Seriously, I keep getting this feeling that was the only reason Youtube was allowed to continue to exist.

If push came to shove with Google, they could just buy a sufficient stake in each of the major media companies that suggesting "Hey, let's sue Google for piracy!" became your career's epitaph. They have something like half of Viacom's market cap in cash, for instance. It's in their interests to be reasonable and comply, but if the actual fate of the company were on the line, it would probably be a different story.

Fallout2man

That begs the question then, why the hell didn't they? I mean that sort of makes me even more uneasy about Google now. That automatic content filtering system on youtube is ridiculous and it should've never been done. If Viacom wasn't twisting their arm then that says how far they've fallen from "Don't Be Evil."

Boring7

I wonder how the argument, "Arresting Richard O’Dwyer for piracy is like arresting Smith&Wesson for murder," would go over.

It really seems like a lot of these internet issues need to branch out from just hammering the first amendment. Yeah, the first amendment DOES answer most questions but a lot of Americans don't really give a shit about the First Amendment since they usually aren't saying anything that gets suppressed. ESPECIALLY the same group of Americans that are OBSESSED with the 2nd amendment.

AngelHedgie

TetraNitroCubane wrote:

PantsB wrote:

TetraNitroCubane wrote:

12gauge wrote:

Kim Schmitz is shady as hell though, judging by the news I have read about him in all the years.

Absolutely and without a doubt true. However, from what we've heard so far, he's being extradited from New Zealand because of supposed crimes committed on MegaUpload (a Hong Kong based website) at the request of the US government. Also, by all accounts, MU has always responded in a timely manner to all DMCA requests. There's no way that MU can monitor everything uploaded to their servers, but they've arrested Schmitz based on copyright infringement via MegaUpload here.

His other shady dealings aside, is that really fair?

According to the indictment, MegaUpload has servers in Virginia and extradition fundamentally involves someone outside of the extraditing's jurisdiction. The indictment involves copyright violations, racketeering and money laundering. I don't know enough to say whether they are guilty of those things or not but unless one doesn't agree with the concept of extradition as a concept I don't see why they should be immune from it. I shouldn't able to commit fraud on Canadians over the internet and be free from prosecution by pointing out I'm not in Canada.

These are details I was unaware of. If the servers were located in Virgina, that changes things considerably. I was under the impression that the servers for Megaupload were in Hong Kong, since the company is based there. The copyright violation charge is a bit specious in my opinion, given the history of MU kowtowing immediately to DMCA requests - But if the arrests are being made with those other charges in mind, then it's a different situation altogether.

Sorry for bringing it up here without doing a bit more research.

Actually, according to the government in the indictment, while they made a show of honoring DMCA requests, in reality they had built a system to work around them and conceal the extent of the piracy occurring on the service. Google was concerned to the degree that they severed their AdWords contract with MU.

The Ars breakdown of the indictment is worth reading.