1) the legality under UK law (conclusion: illegal in both terriories)
2) passage of time (conclusion: no reason to prevent extradition)
3a) Human rights (conclusion: not relevant except in extreme cases, this isn’t extreme)
3b) Revelant forum (conclusion: offence caused in both territories.  Since no one in the UK could be arsed to prosecute, we’ve got to let the Yanks have a go)

There’s a lot of room for appeal, especially since the judge didn’t seem particularly emphatic about point 1 or point 3. 

Point 1 rests on the untested accusation by the Americans that because he controlled the links, he ‘made available’ the content rather than  being a ‘mere conduit’.
The ruling seems rather contradictory since the judge quotes UK precendents that ‘make available’ means actually supplying the stuff, as done by the file locker and not by tvshack.  The judge quotes rulings that compare it to a financial adviser and a bank, where the financial adviser controls the link to a money source, but the bank makes the money available.
Then in the next paragraph he says, “yeah but no but it’s probably illegal yeah?” (I may be paraphrasing here, but I think my wording is more internally consistent than the actual ruling).

The judge in this case sidestepped this by stating that, since *in his opinion* some damage was inflicted by O’Dwyer’s actions to US property, then he should be tried in the US regardless of his status in the UK system. Which says a lot about the judge’s mindset, really, but that’s hardly a surprise for the UK.

So the fact remains: he is a UK citizen living in the UK who didn’t break any UK law, and he’s being extradited to respond of his actions to a foreign country.

It’s like a US citizen was being extradited because he insulted the Queen or broke one of the umpteen silly laws about the British monarchy.

I’ll leave it to others to judge whether what he did is a crime under US law (but if the “google defense” keeps losing, why nobody has really tried to go after Google? double-standards, eh?).

I must be careful not to admit online to have drunk any alcohol, for fear of extradition to Saudi Arabia.

Now, I’m generally very critical of the absolutely ridiculous compensation requests and unreasonable punishment for sharing music etc. The amounts of money that record companies etc ask for copyright infringement are just silly. But it seems to me that this guy was actually trying to make money with other people’s music, it was systematic and pre-meditated, he knew well what he’s doing. What he did could be used and exploited not only in the UK but in all countries (except North Korea, that being a country where he did not commit a crime).
This is not about one country being superior.

Extradition is the real problem. Like with McKinnon, we have a British citizen who did *not* commit a crime under British law, but might have to answer for his actions to a “superior” country.

Copyright or no copyright, it’s an abhorrent state of things and must change. It makes UK citizens subject to any US law, making the country de-facto equal to a US protectorate (i.e. a country where US law rules, but citizens have no representation in the US congress).

Thank you, Mr. Anthony “Tony” Blair, for your enlightened foreign policy. I hope you really believe in all that Catholic mumbo-jumbo, because you certainly earned quite a lot of valuable real estate in a nice region of hell.

It’s not for the judge to throw out a crap law; certainly not this judge,  being, as he is, at the first level of review. The Supreme Court might do it, IF the case ever gets there; but looking at the McKinnon saga, I wouldn’t count on it ever happening for this treaty.

The current crop of idiotic, camera-friendly “legislators” should step up, grow a pair, and throw out the treaty… but they prefer to keep that US conference circuit warm and friendly, for when they’re ready to step down, so hey.

It’s written quite plainly (and, I have to admit, reading it changed my opinion somewhat).

Maybe I’m fuzzy and mistaken here, but hasn’t O’Dwyer already been found to be not guilty in the UK? That’s what makes the extradition case to the US so interesting.

Update: Here’s the relevant snip from the BBC article.

Speaking before the hearing, Mr O’Dwyer said he was “surprised” when police officers from the UK and America seized equipment at his home in South Yorkshire in November 2010.

However, no criminal charges followed from the UK authorities.

Why? Emphasis mine. I really don’t understand why he’s not being tried in the UK, and found either guilty or not guilty in his country of origin. Maybe I’m missing something.

But yes, beyond that matter, your broader points are absolutely right.

The ‘assymetrical treaty/imperialism’ angle might be a bit of a red herring, a distraction from the worse problem of outrageous punishments for things like linking to torrent sites or trivial hacking offenses.

Because Tony Blair literally adores George Bush’s anus.

Well, it’s his best feature, innit?

If it goes to trial (which I doubt), I think his lawyer will win the case based on the Google argument alone.

However, if the guy was tried and let off by a UK court, it’s bullshit to extradite him to another country just because that country might find him guilty.

The music and movie industries are growing. More content is being published that ever before. Yes, individual profits for big acts are down in some cases, but those are the big millionaire bands. More diverse artists are able to make a living at their art than before. The money is just getting spread amongst more artists, so its a smaller share for each, which is a good thing.

And what is more indicative of the problem is that the profits of the middlemen who don’t make any art are still strong. If the artists aren’t doing well but their studios are, its because the studios have spent decades learning how to screw over artists. See also, Hollywood accounting practices and record label contracts.