It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abandoned by British justice: Student faces 10 years in U.S. jail for setting up 'illegal' website

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So when I watch something from tv I'm violating someones rights? Or when I loan a dvd from the library. Yeah...


Of course not because the channel you are watching paid to run the show your watching and all of the commercials in between were placed their via agreement between the product controller and the network.

Loaning a dvd out is not against the law either. If you read my posts, where this example was used, we wouldn't need to rehash it. Inviting 50 people to our house to watch a movie is not illegal either. Now, if you charge money for people to come over to watch the video, then yes you can be charged with a crime because you are personally profiting.

All a person has to do is watch the beginning of any movie and you will see the copyright notice and terms.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


But to reiterate again. Google makes money and also gives people links to the same pirating sites. What's the difference?

My bet is google has money for the top lawyers to squash this "piracy' BS. And the US gov knows it would lose.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
All a person has to do is watch the beginning of any movie and you will see the copyright notice and terms.


Actually, if you really read the copyright notice, it explains if you make money or not it is still infringement.


“Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.”


www.fbi.gov...

To me....having the words "distribution" is the key. This means that, yes, loaning a dvd to anyone is copyright infringement. Or why would they include the word "distribution"?


edit on 26-1-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


Title 17 protects service providers, which is goofy if you ask me. I am assuming the logic behind it revolves around the "there are to many sites and therefore we can't check every single site using our services" argument.

Secondly Google is a search engine and not a dedicated site that solely offers links to copyright material. The UK guy had his own website that was specifically dedicated to directing people to sites that offered items covered by the copyright laws.

Im pretty sure the ad revenue is the crux of the allegations against him.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


From what I have seen distribution in this case is the multiple copying / production of an item and then making it available to the general public / black market shops.

When you bought the dvd you purchased the right to view it. If you give it or sell it to someone else its nothing more than a transfer of a legally acquired item. Now if you make multiple copies of the dvd and sell it, then you would be personally profiting by that action after the initial sale.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thanks for the explanation of the differences in both cases.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by daskakik
 

The above established the criminal action he committed. He was operating a private website which contained links for people to gain access to copyrighted material. Where he ran afoul was his website was generating up to $15,000 in ad revenue from the traffic on his site. That money was a profit, which is where the criminal aspect of the case entered, as you can see in section A above.] (private financial gain).

But copyright infringement as defined by Chapter 1 of Title 17 says nothing about providing information (in this case links) about the location of copyrighted material so regardless of how much money he made it is still not within the statutes definition of what constitutes copyright infringment.

He didn't make $15,000 from the copyrighted material or it's distribution, as defined in Title 17, he made it from ads.

It may very well be a crime according to some other law but not that one.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


17 USC 506

(a) Criminal Infringement.—
(1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;


His website was solely dedicated to providing links which led to the copyrighted material.

The money he received from ad revenue from people using his site to get to the material is where I think the case is coming from.

The ad revenues could be considered private financial gain and since those revenues are coming from the people using his site to gain access to the copyrighted material etc etc etc.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yes but Chapter 1 defines infringment and providing links is not within that definition. So if it isn't even infringment how can it be criminal infringment?

Your making a leap when you say that his activity fell within the definition stated by the law and making another when you say the money earned makes it criminal infringment.
edit on 26-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


As I said its most likely going to revolve around the ad revenue. When people went to his dedicated site, it was for the sole purpose of gaining access to sites that are distributing items in violation of copyright laws / treaties. Because his site only focused on providing links for those sites violating copyright laws, just about every single person who visited his site helped contribute to his profiting via the ad revenues..

This info should hopefully clear some things up -
Richard O'Dwyer - wikipedia

He is being charged with -
18 USC 371 - Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement - 1 count
18 USC 2318 - Criminal Infringement of a Copyright - 1 count

The criminal infringement charge is what I posted, relating back to section 503 and personally profiting from his actions. The indictment should become a matter of public record at some point so we can see the governments evidence / justification. Ive poked around and so far I have not found a copy of it. Im guessing it may come out after Mr. O'Dwyer goes before a judge.

As a side note federal conspiracy charges have never made much sense to me, and it holds in this case with the conspiracy charge. That particular section of US code deals with the US Government being defrauded.

My guess, and if someone knows better please correct me, is since the US government is charged with enforcement of copyright violations, while also being the entity that grants the patents / copyright / intellectual property etc, that a copyright infringement could be seen as defrauding the US government.

The other thought I had revolves around the international treaties. Im thinking when it comes to international situations, the situation moves from the individual into the realm of government to government. If we made a movie, and it ends up on the black market in China, the US government will get a better response than if we contacted them on our own?

Thats just a guess on my part though...


edit on 26-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

Of course anyone could be charged with anything but whether it has legal merit is something else. You would be right about the copyright and extradition treaties but if the charge itself has no merit then why even bother.

I think it is more of a fear tactic than anything else. Even if he gets off others will be thinking that they may not be that lucky when in fact the case never had any merit. Kinda like the cease and desist letters that others have been posting about in another thread.

Now if the charges are based on some other law then that changes everything.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
He is a british citizen, if the USA wanted him, they need to start a war with Britain first, no way this guy would just go over to the USA and turn himself in lmao.


they basically handed him over and are " turning the other way " and acting like he doesn't matter or have rights.

there has to be more to it.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


That was my thoughts as well...

The conspiracy charge doesnt make much sense unless there is more to the story.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I've seen this and am at the point where I would refuse extridition, they would have to kill me, and all my family who would be standing up against the illegal NAZI's doing this. I would be performing citizens arrests on all of them.

1. We cannot allow them any rights over the citizens any longer.

2. We need to stand up, and encircle and protect every single citizen.

This young man should have thousands, hundreds of thousand and even millions as his muscle refusing to allow anyone near him.

This and every other injustice I renounce and denounce and will never cooperate with any of them, never.

Also, all the citizens should immediately set up the same sites, by the hundreds of millions and let them know WHO IS TRULY THE BOSS AND IT AINT THE DRACOS AND CORRUPT CORPORTIONS.

We have the power to put nearly every single one of the corporations out of business.

And we should be starting our own newspapers.

Time to wake the hell up and ACT.

I don't suggest he allow himself to be extradited. Grab a bullhorn and arrest that criminal judge and anyone acting in such manner.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
He will win a major civil suit against his Internet Service Provider.

THEY did not block illegal sites, which he stumbled across and got in trouble for finding.

He will also win a major civil suit againt ICANN for allowing websites to be registered (findable) which had illegal material....of which he stumbled across and got into trouble for.

After he wins those two Civil Suits he will appeal his current conviction and get it overturned and be compensated for being illegally imprisoned/defamation of character/loss of income


You are looking at a soon to be millionaire.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Pervius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


What conviction?

There hasn't even been an initial appearance in front of a judge to enter his plea.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join