TorrentFreak Email Update

TVShack: The Human Cost of Extradition, a Mother’s Story
Graduated Piracy Response Coming To Australia, Or Else
ISPs, Academics and Citizens Oppose EU Anti-Piracy Legislation

TVShack: The Human Cost of Extradition, a Mother’s Story

Posted: 12 Jul 2011 01:32 AM PDT

As became clear during June, former TVShack.net operator Richard O’Dwyer is facing the fight of his life to stop his extradition to the United States for running a media linking site.

Today we hand over TorrentFreak to Julia O’Dwyer, Richard’s mother. Along with her story comes a request for people to support her son and their family in their battle to allow Richard to face justice, if any should be required, in his own country, not thousands of miles away in a foreign land where he has no support system and has committed no crime.

Even if you have no time to read the article right now, please skip to the end to sign the petition which urges Parliament to support Richard’s plea for UK justice.

The Human Cost of Extradition

Richard is a 23yr old Sheffield Hallam University student currently half way through a BSc (Hons) Interactive Media with Animation. Whilst Richard is 23yrs old I describe him at times as 23 going on 17 probably as many mothers would describe their sons! He is obsessive about his hobbies and interests usually ignoring the more mundane side of everyday life.

As part of Richard’s course he is learning to make websites. About 2-3 years ago as a personal project/hobby and to develop his skills, he designed a website where people could search and be directed elsewhere to links to films as well as documentaries and soaps which they could watch on line.

The website grew popular among his friends then through word of mouth became even more popular among young people unknown to him via the internet. A couple of US internet advertising firms approached Richard and asked if they could place their ads on the website, Richard agreed to this which soon made him some money and he was able to enhance his student lifestyle.

Last November the City of London Police called at Richard’s accommodation in Sheffield and took him for questioning about his website. Unknown initially to Richard at the time there were two American " ICE" (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents present. During questioning Richard told them all about his website they took away his computer and bailed him to go to the Police Station on 23rd May, six months later.

As the ICE agents left they shook his hand and said "Don’t worry Richard you won’t be going to America". Actually "going to America" had never entered Richard’s head! The same day Richard closed down the website himself.

On attending with Richard to answer bail in May this year when we expected he would either be charged or questioned further, he was told by the Police that the criminal investigation in the UK had been dropped. He was then told that he was going to be rearrested as they now had a Warrant for his Extradition to the US!

Immediately Richard was taken before a Judge at the Magistrates court, the whole court experience was traumatic with Richard being forced to spend the night in jail until I could sort out the bail conditions the next day. As a family we have never been exposed to this before and it was all a very unpleasant and frightening experience.

The extradition process with the US seems frighteningly speedy. I have researched on the Internet and have not seen any examples of extraditions to the US being refused. People are being sent there regardless of whether there is evidence against them and regardless of whether their case could be dealt with in the UK. This is due to a lopsided agreement between the UK/US whereby a UK citizen can be extradited to the US much more readily then a US citizen could be extradited to the UK. The US affords its citizens more protection from this than does the UK.

Schedule 13 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (UK) contains provisions which would, if commenced, amend the Extradition Act 2003 to provide a further ground on which the Courts may refuse extradition. This would require the Courts to consider whether extradition is barred on the basis that a significant part of the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought occurred in the UK and that it would not be in the interest of justice for the offence in question to be tried in the state requesting extradition. This is called the ‘forum’ bar to extradition.

This amendment was considered to be of significant importance by both parties of the Coalition government when in opposition. However, the new power would not come into force unless and until the Home Secretary presented an order to Parliament. This urgently needs to be done before we see more UK young people being hauled from their bedrooms and Universities to the US.

Richard has cooperated fully with the UK Police and was fully expecting that if he has committed any offence that this would be dealt with by the legal system in his own country. Now it seems likely that he could be sent to the US where he will have no means to obtain proper legal assistance and could be locked up awaiting trial which may take months, more likely years, if other cases I have read about are anything to
go by. At least if he were in the UK he would be allowed bail until a trial.

I am most concerned about Richard being in jail in America with no access to his family or friends. Given the current economic climate along with the distance it would not be feasible for anyone to be able to visit him if he were in jail in the US. The idea of having to spend around £1500 or more in air fares and hotels etc. in order to visit my son for one hour in a US jail is ridiculous and prohibitive. This is in total breach of his Human Rights, rights which other non – British subjects are afforded in the UK even some who have allegedly committed serious crimes

The effect of all this upon our family is immense. Richard is trying to carry on as normal with this hanging over him. Inside I know he is very frightened. His University are being supportive for which we are grateful. We have good support from Richard’s legal team and also from the UK media who have been excellent in their reporting and sensitive to the stress we are under.

From a personal perspective this trauma has totally taken over my life. I hold a responsible senior position as a Specialist Nurse for Terminally ill children. My job requires me to advise other professionals and parents regarding strong medications for children.

I need to concentrate on my job and to be able to function at a high level. Since this nightmare came into our family I have been unable to work due to being off sick due to the stress. My concentration and level of functioning have been greatly affected to the degree that I would not be safe to do my job. This has taken over, every day is spent searching the internet, reading about the law and extradition, contacting others who have been through this or who are going through this horror.

I feel as though I need to keep an eye on Richard constantly now to be aware of any changes in him psychologically as he is finding it hard to accept what could happen to him. I have to go with him to all of his legal appointments, read all the legal papers double checking everything and handle media enquiries. I have to advise him and confirm that he understands things. Extradition seems to us all overly disproportionate to any alleged offence.

The thought of having my only son taken thousands of miles away to face an unknown legal system and without being able to monitor what is happening or to be able to advocate for him fills me with terror. I only know what I read on the internet about the US judicial system and it doesn’t make good reading.

The Extradition process itself is an additional punishment meted out even before any legal proceedings are undertaken.

_ _ _

Stop Extradition, Fair UK Trial for Richard O’Dwyer – Please sign the petition here and help spread Julia’s story so that news of Richard’s plight travels far and wide.

Source: TVShack: The Human Cost of Extradition, a Mother’s Story

Graduated Piracy Response Coming To Australia, Or Else

Posted: 11 Jul 2011 01:43 PM PDT

Last week the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) showed the country’s Internet service providers that far from giving up in their battle against unauthorized file-sharing, they would in fact be stepping up the pressure.

Although AFACT is still engaged in legal proceedings against ISP iiNet, having lost the latest round of action in a case now destined for the appeal court, the carefully weighed rhetoric coming from the Hollywood-backed group speaks volumes.

"AFACT has always been open to discussions and negotiations with ISPs," said an AFACT spokesperson last week on the back of news that it has been ‘inviting’ ISPs to join them in ‘negotiations’ about dealing with online piracy.

"This is simply an invitation to ISPs to engage with us to fulfil their obligations.”

Last week Delimiter reported that the letter sent by AFACT to ISPs highlights points from the most recent hearing in the iiNet case that the movie group feels went in their favor.

It now seems clear that despite losing that round AFACT is moving now – before the appeal – to pressure the ISPs into coming on board. So what do they want? According to The Australian, who have seen a copy of a letter sent to ISP Exetel, they want “a system of graduated responses to online piracy.”

But rather than an approaching talks on a mutually beneficial and friendly footing, AFACT has chosen to do so on the back of threats that are so thinly-veiled the ISPs can be in little doubt about what might be coming next.

The ISPs have until this Wednesday to accept AFACT’s invitation to voluntarily join talks or they will face "unspecified action".

Exetel boss John Linton said that the wording in the letter could not be seen “as anything other than a threat.”

According to a source quoted by The Australian, AFACT will be relying heavily on statements made during the iiNet case by appeal court judge Arthur Emmett in order to generate leverage against the ISPs.

In a nutshell, Emmett suggested that customers should be warned that an infringement has taken place via their account and they should be given a certain time, say 7 days, to respond to the allegation. If no response should arrive then the ISP could suspend the account until one does. During the iiNet case itself, Judge Emmett suggested going even further for repeat infringers.

"Maybe the stage is reached where it's reasonable to say, 'Look, you've had warning after warning. Maybe you're doing other lawful things, but if you insist on doing this unlawful activity, we're going to close you down'." No surprise then that Hollywood like Emmett’s style.

In their ongoing attempts to meet AFACT somewhere in the middle, during March this year iiNet came up with proposals for dealing with the issue of infringement, outlined in the diagram below.

"iiNet has developed a model which addresses ISP concerns but one we think remains attractive to all participants, including the sustainable strategy of an impartial referee for the resolution of disputes and the issue of penalties for offenders," explained iiNet chief Michael Malone at the time. He doesn’t seem to be moving from this stance today.

“The rights holders need to provide cogent and unequivocal evidence, which means a transparent and robust collection process, tested by an independent body, such as the judiciary,” said Malone.

So the question remains – will the ISPs respond to the veiled threats of AFACT and agree to meet, or will they call Hollywood’s bluff and wait for the outcome of the iiNet appeal instead?

One thing is for certain, Exetel boss John Linton says he doesn’t respond to threats and won’t be complying. We should know later this week if others take the same stance.

Source: Graduated Piracy Response Coming To Australia, Or Else

ISPs, Academics and Citizens Oppose EU Anti-Piracy Legislation

Posted: 11 Jul 2011 07:14 AM PDT

Over the past several years many stringent anti-piracy treaties and directives have been proposed in the European Union and abroad, usually as a result of pro-copyright lobbying efforts.

The “IPR Enforcement Directive” (IPRED) falls into this category. In short, it is filled with measures that would make it easier to clamp down on file-sharers while turning Internet providers into copyright police.

Earlier this year various stakeholders and EU citizens were given the chance to have their say on IPRED, and the results of this consultation were published today. A total of 380 responses were sent in, nearly half of which came from individuals.

There is very little consensus on the contents of the anti-piracy piracy directive. What is apparent from the summary published by the European Commission is that there’s a clear divide between copyright holders on the one hand, and citizens, Internet providers and academics on the other.

As was to be expected, the overwhelming majority of copyright holders and various collecting societies call for even stricter rules on copyright-infringement and file-sharing. They further call for greater responsibilities for Internet providers who they think should filter rogue sites and monitor copyright infringers.

Most of the responses, however, were opposing the implementation of harsher anti-piracy measures for a variety of reasons.

The Internet providers for example stress that stricter rules could have a chilling effect on innovation. They also side with the vast majority of citizens, consumer protection organisations and academics who claim that IPRED threatens basic human rights.

“The overwhelming majority of individual citizens, consumer protection organisations and academics strongly argued against any further (over)regulation of IPR infringements, especially in the context of the online world. Filtering of content and monitoring traffic on the internet were perceived as threats to fundamental rights or even censorship and therefore clearly rejected,” the European Commission writes.

In addition, the majority of the respondents argue that the entertainment industry itself is one of the causes of piracy, due to the lacking availability of legal content.

“Many stakeholders who opposed amending the current IPR Enforcement Directive, including ISPs, telecommunication operators and a majority of individual contributors, viewed the lack of available and attractive licit offer as one of the main causes for online piracy. They considered that increasing such service offers would constitute a feasible alternative to imposing more detailed enforcement measures.”

Most citizens go even further and call for legalizing file-sharing entirely, as it helps the free exchange of information.

“In their contributions, most individual citizens called for removing copyright protection against file-sharing, arguing that the free exchange of information would help spread culture as well as increase creativity without having detrimental effect on industry and society as a whole; such free exchange should therefore be supported rather than considered as infringing copyright law,” the European Commission writes.

From reading the responses it is clear that the majority has serious doubts about the anti-piracy measures that are introduced by IPRED. However, as we’ve seen time and time again in the past, this is by no means a guarantee that the lawmakers will listen.

Report on the responses

Source: ISPs, Academics and Citizens Oppose EU Anti-Piracy Legislation

loveislife

Pages

Tuesday, July 12, 2011