Richard O'Dwyer campaign on change.org

[James]

http://www.change.org/petitions/ukh...utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

Campaign was set up by Jimmy Wales a few days ago and has 165,000 signatures in support (so far). I hope at least some of you have signed it

 

[PredPred is verified member.]

yes, thankyou for raising awareness James.
have signed up and commented
It is an un believable outrage, so much so I would happily join a march for this poor young man.
The principle here is so important, May needs to be turfed out of office over this, these agreements with the U.S need tearing to shreds, like yesterday

was actually discussing his plight with a friend yesterday as he's local and my friend lives in his street

 

[grantwgrantw is verified member.]

Bump..........Everyone should be signing this!!

Grant

 

[fresh79]

Signed & outraged, I totally forgot about this. where is the thread on here about it, it was discussed if/or/not having a .co.uk would have been a different outcome.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Signed and commented.

 

[newguy]

It makes us seem so weak as a country that we're willing to throw people to the lions over stuff like this.

 

[Brassneck]

It makes us seem so weak as a country that we're willing to throw people to the lions over stuff like this.

I feel sorry for Richard, but it reminds us all about the responsibility we have for the content and what goes on on our websites. I don't know the legalities of all this, but he was making serious money out of organising and facilitating access to copyrighted material.

Looking at the wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O'Dwyer - in my opinion it doesn't look good that he set up TV Shack again in 2010 after the original tvshack.net domain was seized.

Stephen.

 

[newguy]

These things become so overblown due to the power of thes industries involved, that he would not get anything approaching a fair trial.

We see that from the megaupload situation where the guys property was raided by armed officers, servers and so on were taken with use of invalid warrants. The hard drives were cloned and taken out of the country without the authority to do so: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10816121. Millions of those who used the site for perfectly valid reasons are being refused access to their files by the government. When it comes to breaking the law, it's one rule for the authorities, another for citizens.

If he committed a crime, charge him here. If another country wants to attempt to say that this is under their jurisdiction bully for them. We should stick to our guns.

I do agree with you about responsibilities. If content is hosted somewhere against the owners wishes, then it should be taken down. That's what DMCA is for though.

 

[Brassneck]

If anybody is interested - here is the basis of the case against him - http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/UK_CTS/C120113P.pdf

Personally, scares me to death what powers the USA seem to have, but having said that this guy seemed to be pretty stupid / greedy to carry on after his site was taken down.

 

[newguy]

I definitely agree that the guy made some bad decisions. I just hope the outcome isn't completely horrendous for him, which I fear is what will happen if he's extradited. These things seem to drag on for years too, which can't be great for a persons mental health.

 

[Nova]

Signed

 

[scooter]

I feel sorry for Richard, but it reminds us all about the responsibility we have for the content and what goes on on our websites. I don't know the legalities of all this, but he was making serious money out of organising and facilitating access to copyrighted material.

Looking at the wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O%27Dwyer - in my opinion it doesn't look good that he set up TV Shack again in 2010 after the original tvshack.net domain was seized.

Stephen.

This says it all.
I'm most likely going to be the bad guy here but hear me out and then shoot me down :grin:

This guy was making £15K a month on this site through advertising. That is a huge amount. How many of us would like to be making that through one site? He is no angel. He knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. Not once but twice.

He gambled and it looks like he lost. You cannot say it is a victimless crime. I said this before, he was the facilitator. He brought all parties together, full in the knowledge that what they were sharing was pirated and he did it for greed. No other reason.

I'll not be signing because it affects eveyone in the industry. From the man that cleans the studio toilets to the person that takes your money when you go to the Odeon. (if you still go or maybe you prefer to download for nothing)

In my view, he is a parasite and i'm happy in the knowledge that he is now most likely having to spend all his ill gotten gains (and some) on his qc's.



.

 

[newguy]

This says it all.
I'm most likely going to be the bad guy here but hear me out and then shoot me down :grin:

This guy was making £15K a month on this site through advertising. That is a huge amount. How many of us would like to be making that through one site? He is no angel. He knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. Not once but twice.

He gambled and it looks like he lost. You cannot say it is a victimless crime. I said this before, he was the facilitator. He brought all parties together, full in the knowledge that what they were sharing was pirated and he did it for greed. No other reason.

I'll not be signing because it affects eveyone in the industry. From the man that cleans the studio toilets to the person that takes your money when you go to the Odeon. (if you still go or maybe you prefer to download for nothing)

In my view, he is a parasite and i'm happy in the knowledge that he is now most likely having to spend all his ill gotten gains (and some) on his qc's.



.

The Avengers seems to be doing rather well at the cinema. One of the most successful movies ever in fact. It's almost as if hardly anyone is interested in downloading a crappy cam version of the movie and they actually go and watch it instead. Maybe we should align somewhat with that rather than propaganda from those who tell us the whole industry is being ruined by pirates.

We need to understand that their ultimate goal is that people will not be watching or downloading music via any method other than their own outdated methods. These are the kind of companies who panic when people buy a video recorder. Piracy thrives where innovation is lacking. If it wasn't for piracy we likely wouldn't even have services that Spotify or Netflix that actually give people a reason to pay for content they want. It hastened these developments.

If this guy was linking to content uploaded without permission, then I certainly agree that action should be allowed to be taken against whoever uploaded it. If he uploaded it, then action should be taken against him. That's what DMCA is for. If we say that he is a facilitator then we may as well say that youtube is too.. and google. Blame the service or platform rather than the individual sharing content and the whole net grinds to a halt.

If there is a case to be answered I'd much rather he was tried here. I would have less faith in him receiving a fair trial in the states, and as such hope that he manages to avoid that situation.

 

[AssetDomains]

This says it all.
I'm most likely going to be the bad guy here but hear me out and then shoot me down :grin:

This guy was making £15K a month on this site through advertising. That is a huge amount. How many of us would like to be making that through one site? He is no angel. He knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. Not once but twice.

He gambled and it looks like he lost. You cannot say it is a victimless crime. I said this before, he was the facilitator. He brought all parties together, full in the knowledge that what they were sharing was pirated and he did it for greed. No other reason.

I'll not be signing because it affects eveyone in the industry. From the man that cleans the studio toilets to the person that takes your money when you go to the Odeon. (if you still go or maybe you prefer to download for nothing)

In my view, he is a parasite and i'm happy in the knowledge that he is now most likely having to spend all his ill gotten gains (and some) on his qc's.



.

You make some good points some of which are hard to argue against in regards to what he done. The entertainment industry if it ever wants to tackle piracy needs to embrace technology rather than shun it but that's getting of topic a little.
The bigger picture is why are the uk happy to just hand this guy over to the US he committed his crimes in this country and should face trial here.
I'm not sure what category prison would be held in in the US but if its anything like the ones featured in Louis Theroux documentaries that should be grounds enough to halt most extraditions stateside.

 

[newguy]

U.K. Home Office won't block O'Dwyer extradition in copyright case - http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...t-block-odwyer-extradition-in-copyright-case/

 

[scottmccloud]

Crazy world when Richard O'Dwyer and Gary McKinnon are due to be extradited, a known paedophile is free to roam our streets despite also being wanted by US authorities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2166204/Paedophile-Shawn-Sullivan-spared-extradition-US-courts-say-vulnerable-Gary-McKinnon-MUST-go.html

 

[afx]

I definitely agree that the guy made some bad decisions. I just hope the outcome isn't completely horrendous for him, which I fear is what will happen if he's extradited. These things seem to drag on for years too, which can't be great for a persons mental health.

What bad decision or decisions did he make other than saying how great free stuff is ? Which in itself is not an unlawful act, let alone an imprisonable extraditable offence.

I don't read one other single part of the case made against him that could not be levelled at Google.

There is nothing but implied wrong doing (large visitors and ad revenue), again no laws broken. I fail to see what law he has broken and the specific evidence to the offence committed that underpins the case against him.

If I felt compelled to download copyrighted content the first place I'd look is Google and not tvshack or thepiratebay. The last time I checked Google was still there and is breaking no laws. They also have the highest trafficked domains in existence with 99% of their revenue ad generated -- yet in the case against Richard ad revenue and website traffic are cited and passed off as evidence of being a copyright infringer.

 

[afx]

This says it all.
I'm most likely going to be the bad guy here but hear me out and then shoot me down :grin:

This guy was making £15K a month on this site through advertising. That is a huge amount. How many of us would like to be making that through one site? He is no angel. He knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. Not once but twice.

He gambled and it looks like he lost. You cannot say it is a victimless crime. I said this before, he was the facilitator. He brought all parties together, full in the knowledge that what they were sharing was pirated and he did it for greed. No other reason.

I'll not be signing because it affects eveyone in the industry. From the man that cleans the studio toilets to the person that takes your money when you go to the Odeon. (if you still go or maybe you prefer to download for nothing)

In my view, he is a parasite and i'm happy in the knowledge that he is now most likely having to spend all his ill gotten gains (and some) on his qc's.



.

Despite your personal opinions (or mine) about how much money he was making per month or how he knew what he was doing etc. Sticking with just the facts and the case against him, are you comfortable he has acted unlawfully and can you site the specific laws broken and evidence of his personal copyright infringement?

I read the case and I don't see it.

 

[newguy]

If I felt compelled to download copyrighted content the first place I'd look is Google and not tvshack or thepiratebay. The last time I checked Google was still there and is breaking no laws. They also have the highest trafficked domains in existence with 99% of their revenue ad generated -- yet in the case against Richard ad revenue and website traffic are cited and passed off as evidence of being a copyright infringer.

It demonstrates the power that multi billion dollar corporations hold in today's society, compared to the individual. He's an easy target so he gets taken down. Linking to copyright material is not a crime here, hence why such cases get thrown out. In addition to that, when's the last time US authorities let someone be extradited for alleged crimes committed whilst on American soil? Never.

The writer of the IT Crowd and Father Ted had some words on the matter:

“It just seems to me that people like Richard are being punished for being able to navigate the modern world,” said Linehan. “The internet has changed everything, they’re doing what comes naturally in these new, uncharted waters and suddenly they’re getting their collars felt."

“And then [there's] the sheer shocking arbitrary nature of it all … to be told that you could face up to 10 years for sharing links? When I heard that Nora Ephron died, I shared on Twitter a link to the full version of When Harry Met Sally on YouTube. Am I a criminal now? Why? Why not?

“The internet means that commerce and communication and culture and morality is changing, and changing so fast that we struggle to keep up.”

O'Dwyer, in some respects actually went the extra mile, because not only didn't he host copyright material, he even removed links to that material when requested. Lots of his links were to youtube. Who hasn't shared music video, or TV clips or episode link found on youtube? The stupid thing about all of this is the DMCA works fine as it is. If content is hosted somewhere without permission, flag it and it will get removed. We don't need to go after those linking to hosted content, or people linking to people linking to hosted content. Where does it all end?

 

[afx]

It demonstrates the power that multi billion dollar corporations hold in today's society, compared to the individual. He's an easy target so he gets taken down. Linking to copyright material is not a crime here, hence why such cases get thrown out. In addition to that, when's the last time US authorities let someone be extradited for alleged crimes committed whilst on American soil? Never.

The writer of the IT Crowd and Father Ted had some words on the matter:



O'Dwyer, in some respects actually went the extra mile, because not only didn't he host copyright material, he even removed links to that material when requested. Lots of his links were to youtube. Who hasn't shared music video, or TV clips or episode link found on youtube? The stupid thing about all of this is the DMCA works fine as it is. If content is hosted somewhere without permission, flag it and it will get removed. We don't need to go after those linking to hosted content, or people linking to people linking to hosted content. Where does it all end?

Yup it's rotten to the core, it should be Theresa May who is hung out to dry not this young kid with his whole life ahead of him. The prospect of him ending up in a federal prison is sickening beyond words.

Even if he had exabytes of copyrighted material on his own servers; 10 years in a federal prison is in no way proportionate to the crime. The fact that he has committed no such offence in his own country or the country he's being extradited to is abhorrent.