Wikipedia founder calls for UK 'pirate' extradition to stop
Summary: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has stepped up to defend a British student who faces extradition to the U.S. over a link-site that operates "no differently to Google."
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has blasted the decision to extradite U.K. student Richard O'Dwyer, who faces a U.S. trial for alleged crimes that were committed on U.K. soil.
The U.S. Department of Justice wants to see the 23-year-old student extradited to face copyright offences.
According to U.S. prosecutors, his "victims" were in Hollywood and therefore should be extradited to face trial, despite a similar U.K. case ruling that such link-sites are not illegal only two years ago.
The 23-year-old student set up TV-Shack, a site that provided links to television and film content elsewhere on the Web. Not a single shred of copyrighted material was stored on his website.
O'Dwyer faces 10 years in prison should he be convicted by a U.S. court. (He could always take a leaf out of Julian Assange's book and make a run for the Ecuadorian embassy.)
Describing O'Dwyer as a "clean-cut, geeky kid" who he imagines as the sort of person who will end up "launching the next big thing on the Internet" in a piece for The Guardian, he considers the case against him to be "thin" and called it "an outrage that he is being extradited to the U.S. to face felony charges for something that he is not being prosecuted for here."
But it was argued that the site was “no different to Google” in how it operated. In practical, objective terms, the site was no different to Google, or any other search engine for that matter. O'Dwyer even took down links from his site when notified, complying with the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown system.
At the same time, Wales set up a Change.org petition to the U.K.'s Home Secretary Theresa May, who has the power to put a halt to the extradition.
It's not the first time Wales has intervened on a matter of political principle.
In January, in protest of the SOPA and PIPA bills presented before Congress, he blacked out Wikipedia for a day to simulate how a "censored" Web would harm the free and open speech of the site's online editors.
O'Dwyer's case opened up a whole new can of worms that could see any U.K. citizen facing extradition to the United States by simply tweeting a link to a copyrighted file on The Pirate Bay, for example.
May gave the go-ahead for O'Dwyer to be extradited, but remains at home pending an appeal to the High Court in London.
Image credit: Change.org.
Related:
- What does Google's piracy 'nonsense' and an extradited student have in common?
- TV-Shack extradition approved: Every UK citizen is now at risk
- Student faces U.S. extradition over 'pirate-TV link' website
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Perhaps it is time
PS.
I am not against all lawyers. Just against those making cases out of thin air, hurting real people in the process.
It's a crock!
Balls
I could go either way.
On THe other hand, he didnt host any of the tv or film and he did cooperate when asked to. I am ok with him winning his appeal, really you should only be extradited for really bad crimes, I chalk this up to a little crime. Still wrong but extradition seems alittle harsh.
???
And he hurt Holywood? Really? By assembling already freely available information and withdrawing questionable links when requested? I am sorry my friend, but this is simply delusional.
Also, yes, Britts in general are not subject to US law. Extradition works only if the "crime" he committed (remember, not guilty unless court of law decides he is) is a crime in UK as well. Or do you imply that USSR could have requested, and US granted an extradition of a person who denies the leading role of the Communist party for example? Yea, didn't think so.
This is abuse of the legal system, nothing else.
Well lets see
"By assembling already freely available information " Thats the point though isn't it, he assembled it. Knowing full well it was copyrighted, I know its available but I don't make a website of BBC shows and point people to it. Say what you will but he did hurt Hollywood in loss DVD sales etc.. because of his website. Are you really saying morally and ethically that he is right?
Here is the thing though, If I was pointing to pirated BBC shows and they tried to extradite me, I think they would have a case. If I hacked the UK's Government network, after a tragedy like 911, made their 7th fleet move, none of which he denies, yea I would expect the UK to come after me.
"Extradition works only if the "crime" he committed (remember, not guilty unless court of law decides he is) is a crime in UK as well." If that is true then great he will win his appeal, enough said. Yes I think extradition is a bit harsh and should only be used for the worst crimes.
Since you went off on a crazy tangent about USSR, I will to, If I went to the UK and hurt someone went to a country that hurting someone was not illegal but the first country had a extradition treaty you really dont think the treaty should be used? Really?
Russia
These sorts of extraditions have always bothered me
oh ...
check ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0
morally?
I dont know the website, but if the users were posting links and the site-owner was taking them down after DCMA, then there is no case. If the webiste owner was posting the links then I see that more as a publishing role, and the ground gets a little iffy.