[benhalllondon]

Just one fact/opinion to add that is always missed out on the petitions etc:

"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."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-1826680...

The guy was earning heaps of money.

[gouranga]

So someone in the US ICE makes a claim and that magically entitles us to kick them over the border and brush our hands.

That's just fucked up.

So what if he made lots of money from advertising. He took a chance. If it's illegal in the UK, then he should be prosecuted here. If it's illegal in the US, none of their fucking business.

Let's also not forget that the US ICE are probably guilty of many more REAL crimes than this guy so this is a whole pile of hypocrisy coming from one of the least "free" countries in the world:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us/10detain.html?_r=1

[wormwood28]

Now I don't think this guy should be extradited, but it is worth taking a look at what his site was. Here is the last capture I could find in the way back machine. This doesn't look like a search engine to me, more like a curated collection of links to copyrighted TV shows and movies. I couldn't say whether he was 'trying to follow the law' or not.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090629190857/http://tvshack.net...

The FAQ is particularly amusing:

""" 7- Why are there so many Megavideo hosted videos on TV Shack? Can't you use another video host?

A: TV Shack staff is currently working toward providing many different alternatives to hosting sites that are accepted for submission. There is a movement taking place (thanks to our regulars) to provide an alternate link for all Megavideo links on the website as evidenced by The Megavideo Replacement Initiative. We have very little control over where videos are hosted being that we are not the ones hosting the videos ourselves. TV Shack simply links to these hosting sites. Nevertheless, please ask yourselves, would you rather not watch the video at all? Megavideo has "bad" aspects to it, such as limiting the time that you can watch. Fortunately, it also has very good aspects, such as good quality, very fast streaming and fast upload abilities.

Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but this is a normal, typical price). The following prices are in US dollars!

Prices for 1 adult to go to the movie theater:

Typical US movie theater ticket: $10 Typical US nacho-coke or popcorn-coke combo: $10 Typical US parking (if it's in garage such as at the mall): $5

Total for 1 adult to go to the movies: $25

Prices for 1 season of a popular show:

Scrubs - The Complete First Season (2001) bought at Walmart (link) (it's the cheapest place from what I have seen and heard):

Discounted: $34.86 List Price: $49.99

So, as you see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of time.

In other words, yes, we will try to find videos on other hosts for our users. We will even try to provide alternate links for you to watch the video on whichever host you enjoy. However, when there is no other host which has the video, we will link to Megavideo because something is better than nothing (or having to spend quite a bit of money on it). """

[rcgs]

So does Google. Your point?

[vladd]

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 .

[cf0ed2aa-bdf5]

And all that is (or should be) completely irrelevant since we are talking about a British guy hosting a website that not primarily targeted US audience.

I am not a lawyer but I am fairly sure O'Dwyer does not have to abide the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Google, as an American Website, however has to.

[vladd]

According to the Extradition Act 2003 of the UK Parliament [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 , http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/UK_USA_extradition.p... ], article 2.1, "An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.".

I suspect the UK law that was broken was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010 and that is being used by US to request the extradition.

Once on US territory, US law would apply.

At that level of income, a significant part of his audience could be proven to be from US. It would also matter if he used US servers, US registrars (.net is controlled by Verisign which is an American corporation) and so on, but I doubt prosecutors would have much issues in proving US jurisdiction once he's in USA.

[rlpb]

What you say makes sense, assuming that jurisdiction is clearly with the country that is requesting extradition.

What I fail to understand is why the US has jurisdiction here. What brings this crime to the US? If it is just that the US is on the Internet too, then the logical extension would be to pass this guy around every country in the world, which is clearly ridiculous.

He should be answerable to the law. But the UK seems like the appropriate jurisdiction here, not the US. If the problem is that UK law doesn't cover this case, then that is what should be questioned, rather than pretending that the US has jurisdiction in order to work around the rule of law.

[duiker101]

From the message of the petition it appears that also him complied with take-down requests.

Let's say the truth that we all know... Google, is google, they cannot go against it because it's too big, it's easier to bully with someone smaller than you.

[vladd]

I don't know if you're from US, but that's not how things work: don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bullshit in the US regarding SOPA, how laws are made, how lobbying works, but legal-wise, the more money you have, more of a target you are, so if Google were to do illegal things per US legislation, they would be sued even faster than this kid.

I suspect the main difference in Google versus a specifically-made torrents search engine is the good faith criteria that would apply to Google. Also, it's not enough to reply to take-down requests in order to plea safe harbor protection, you actually need to have a registered agent and pay the registration fee (around $100).

[rplnt]

Why should UK citizen comply with DMCA?

[sp332]

The point is that the DMCA provides a safe harbor for the masses of copyright infringement on YouTube. The UK doesn't have the DMCA, so no safe harbor.

[jsvaughan]

Google also hosts the actual content. This guy didn't.

[mfieldhouse]

Any links on Google to pirated content are an initially unavoidable byproduct of crawling the web. Whereas providing access to pirated content was this guy's core business and value proposition.