[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.