31–40 of 55 posts
I'm signing the petition because I don't believe he should be extradited, however it's quite clear that he broke the law and was profiting from his crimes. I hope this petition is only against extradition and he will still be charged here in the UK.
I'm signing the petition because I don't believe he should be extradited, however it's quite clear that he broke the law and was profiting from his crimes. I hope this petition is only against extradition and he will still be charged here in the UK.
Which law exactly was he breaking? And how did you determine that it is quite clear?
> The case was brought by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned more than $230,000 (£147,000) in advertising revenue before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name in June 2010.
I have been unable to find any evidence that he has denied this claim, so I am assuming that what the ICE claimed is accurate. TVShack.net (and TVShack.cc) were very high traffic websites (top 1000 at their highest according to Alexa) and based on my own knowledge of advertising revenues at such volumes of traffic the suggestion that he earned >$200,000 is one that I don't have a hard time believing.
Specific to whether or not he committed a crime, a UK Judge has said he did:
> during O'Dwyer's extradition hearing, it was held by the Judge that the offences alleged were also illegal under UK law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer#US_and_UK_copyri...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which law exactly was he breaking? And how did you determine that it is quite clear?
From a news story: > The case was brought by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned more than $230,000 (£147,000) in advertising revenue before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name in June 2010. I have been unable to find any evidence that he has denied this claim, so I am assuming that what the ICE claimed is accurate. TVShack.net (…
Annoyingly, O'Dwyer's wikipedia article is scant for information on UK charges & the reasons for extradition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer. If anything, it is quite unclear which UK laws he has broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which law exactly was he breaking? And how did you determine that it is quite clear?
From a news story: > The case was brought by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned more than $230,000 (£147,000) in advertising revenue before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name in June 2010. I have been unable to find any evidence that he has denied this claim, so I am assuming that what the ICE claimed is accurate. TVShack.net (…
"His extradition hearings are based solely on proving he has a case to answer in the US" - [1]
"O'Dwyer cannot present an in-depth response to the allegations he faces during his extradition cases, as these need only prove he has a case to answer and the actions" - [2]
[1] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/24/richard-odwyer-extr...
[2] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/24/richard-odwyer-lega...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a news story: > The case was brought by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned more than $230,000 (£147,000) in advertising revenue before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name in June 2010. I have been unable to find any evidence that he has denied this claim, so I am assuming that what the ICE claimed is accurate. TVShack.net (…
Also just to add, If he did start providing evidence as to why he didnt break the laws (UK/US), it would show that he has a reason to extradited. (in order to defend the claims against him) "His extradition hearings are based solely on proving he has a case to answer in the US" - [1] "O'Dwyer cannot present an in-depth response to the allegations he faces during his extradition cases, as these need only prove he has…
This approach has been tried in the past and been ignored sadly. How about the approach of: Whoever runs the DNS aided and abeted the alledged crime. Google is just as guilty by this precedence being set. Sure there are many other overlooked angles, but given the facts i'd say the media industry needs a dressing down and told they are not the law.
> Google is just as guilty by this precedence being set. I beg to differ. Google might be guilty of this, since google has business in the US. However, as far as I understand, this wasn't illegal in the UK, and as a UK citizen, running a server in the UK, you have to be able to feel safe from prosecution, as long as you follow the laws in your country. So, I'd say, if anything, google might be guilty, this guy isn't.…
If I host content in the United States that is illegal in Iran does that mean I can be extradited to Iran to face charges? I hope this kid fights this tooth and nail with good lawyers. He needs good representation as this case has potential to set very important precedents surrounding basic issues of sovereignty and jurisdictional precedence. Is the US government going to argue that physical location is irrelevant on…
THIS makes no sence. It is like complaining to my local GP about starving children in africa!
If you think it is wrong about him being extradited then take it up with those extraditing him and those who have brought these actions into being. Shout all you like to the UK goverment but all they can do is point at the USA and go talk to the hand, sadly.
So personaly I see this is a futil petition that is because it is targeted at the wrong people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does Google. Your point?
Google has a registered DMCA agent, includes a DMCA dashboard ( https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard?hl=en ) and replies to take-down requests. I imagine good faith applies in Google's case and they are protected by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29 .