[VonLipwig]

It's bullsh*t.

I agree that a person doesn't need to actually visit a country to face extradition. I agree that the US should be able to extradite people who break their laws and harm American citizens and business.

However this doesn't look like a legal action to me. It looks like a political one.

The guy never hosted the content. He simply created a resource that made content already hosted on hundreds of websites elsewhere easier to find.

Where does it stop? If my website links to a site like The Pirate Bay or whatever does that mean I am helping people infringe copyright? If a US citizen verbally asks me where they can 'aquire' photoshop and I say.. "Oh you could probably find a torrent at blah address" does this book me a one way trip to the states?

US silliness aside it is demoralising that the UK Government provides so little protection to residents. This guy didn't physically harm anyone. He didn't make a site that specifically targetted the US. He didn't host the content. He didn't visit the US or host his site there. He didn't even break a UK law...

How you can send a resident to - potentially - be incarcerated in a foreign country for commiting an act which your own legal system doesn't believe is a crime is beyond me.

[tptacek]

Nobody is going to extradite you for putting a link on your personal website to The Pirate Bay. In fact: they can't; even if that link technically does establish contributory infringement, your liability for posting that link is civil, not criminal.

That's not what this guy did. He made 15,000GBP/mo placing ads on a site that prominently featured first-run movies and included promotional copy he himself added suggesting that the site would save you money because you didn't have to go to a theater. It's the running a business on copyright infringement that gets you charged criminally.

[poodougnut]

So what is the offence he committed in the UK?

[tptacek]

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, Section 107, (2A), which establishes provisions for criminal infringement.

[poodougnut]

    107(2A) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
    “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”.

What's meant by 'communicating' here then? And wouldn't the second clause---by the same standard---make linking to copyrighted material that is illegally distributed unlawful in any case? What a terribly written law.

[tptacek]

Are you a UK lawyer? I'm not. I don't feel like I can productively argue this point with you. What I can say is that the citation of that law and the conclusion that O'Dwyer should be tried for violating it came from a UK judge; I linked to the ruling upthread.

[maqr]

Careful! You're openly talking about "Th3 Pir4t3 B4Y"! If someone looked up the site mentioned in your comment, they might infringe, and you've contributed. Giving the name of the place to find pirated material is a very short jump from an http link.

[joering2]

maqr, I actually googled "Th3 Pir4t3 B4Y" and got to "The Pirate Bay" website. Thanks, brother! Just learnt about this site! boy I was soo naive buying all those CDs and DVDs and BluRays!! I say: no more!