[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Like most people I guess, when these cases surfaced I thought that they were a pure and simple symptom of a lopsided extradition treaty, that the US authorities were willy waving and that basically, the issue was as simple as that. However, in the last 24 hours, several of the MSM sites have reported that:

1. O'Dwyer is alleged to have made $250k in banner ad revenue from his pirate download link site, and

2. Tappin was told explicitly that the parts he was being asked to ship to Iran were bits of missile, articulated his understanding that the trade was completely illegal and offered - for a hefty fee - to cook the books in order to facilitate the shipment.

While I'd still prefer the trials to take place in this country, on the basis that the alleged offences took place on UK soil (and O'Dwyer has never even set foot in the US), if there is any prima facie substance in these allegations it does rather suggest that criminal proceedings are more than justified. I wonder, though, why they haven't surfaced before now. Fear of prejudicing any trial? Political pressure for reason or reasons unknown? In any case, it puts the government in a very tricky position - caught between the deportees' campaigners on the one side and the American authorities on the other - because they cannot argue credibly that the charges themselves are spurious and/or not an offence under UK law.

Discuss!

[interestrateripoff]

Where's the money O'Dwyer is meant to have made?

Seems great going for a "movie/TV" site.

[RichB]

So what if he made money off banner ads?

Did he provide the 'pirate' material? No. Did it reside on servers he controlled? No. Did it pass through networks he controlled? No.
So what did he do wrong?

Missile batteries? I thought it hadn't gone to court yet - how do you know that?

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

RichB, on 14 March 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

So what if he made money off banner ads?

Did he provide the 'pirate' material? No. Did it reside on servers he controlled? No. Did it pass through networks he controlled? No.
So what did he do wrong?

No-one - or at least, far fewer people - would have visited his site and seen the ads if he hadn't been providing links to pirated content. Therefore it could viably be argued that he profited from the piracy (the cyber equivalent of handling stolen goods).

RichB, on 14 March 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Missile batteries? I thought it hadn't gone to court yet - how do you know that?

That is what the American authorities alleged in his bail hearing last week, and reported on several MSM sites.

[RichB]

The Ayatollah Buggeri, on 14 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

No-one - or at least, far fewer people - would have visited his site and seen the ads if he hadn't been providing links to pirated content. Therefore it could viably be argued that he profited from the piracy (the cyber equivalent of handling stolen goods).



That is what the American authorities alleged in his bail hearing last week, and reported on several MSM sites.

That first one is a bit of a stretch. By that definition the telecoms company should be on the hook too, as should the Yellow pages for any company advertising through them that goes on to commit fraud, theft etc.
Rather makes the advertising agencies liable for any infractions committed by their clients as well... after all, a link to a site is simply an advert for it.

[cica]

The O'dwyer case is scary as hell. Even if he really has done something that damages society (I doubt it) don't bloody extradite him!

[cabbagepatchkid]

The Ayatollah Buggeri, on 14 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

No-one - or at least, far fewer people - would have visited his site and seen the ads if he hadn't been providing links to pirated content. Therefore it could viably be argued that he profited from the piracy (the cyber equivalent of handling stolen goods.

I have seen adverts for various large corporations appear on sites that actually host or contain unauthorised copyright material. These ads often placed via google ads. It seems somewhat OTT to extradite the student before taking on the corporates. Secondly, maybe the US should consider Afghan demands that the soldier who recently went postal should be tried in an Afghani court, rather than trying to render a student who put a list of links on a web page.

[stormymonday_2011]

The Ayatollah Buggeri, on 14 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

No-one - or at least, far fewer people - would have visited his site and seen the ads if he hadn't been providing links to pirated content. Therefore it could viably be argued that he profited from the piracy (the cyber equivalent of handling stolen goods).

A bit like Google then.

This post has been edited by stormymonday_2011: 20 March 2012 - 09:46 PM