Talk:Richard O'Dwyer

Extradition agreed

I've added it to the article, but improve on the wording. 88.104.90.170 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

== Petition == There is a petition on Demand Progress that apparently was started by Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia - is this something noteworthy, or would that impose a bias to the article? The petition in question is here: http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/odwyer/?akid=1426.2091819.B1gCET&rd=1&t=8 (Nevermind - didn't see that it was already linked) 198.213.216.31 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Height

Just noting here that an IP is insisting on adding height to the article, although it is unsourced and not relevant. I've removed it per WP:BLP, WP:V, and the documentation at Template:Infobox person. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Search Engine

Correct. District Judge Purdy did not explicitly state that TVShack was not a search engine, but he did not have to. He ruled Mr. O'Dwyer's actions illegal and approved extradition, meaning that he did not accept the "just a search engine" defence. Here is the quote: "Accordingly in my judgement I am satisfied the conduct alleged in the instant request meets the dual criminality test and would be an offence in this jurisdiction." This means that the court ruled his actions "would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom." Essentially ruling that the "mere conduit" exemption afforded to search engines did not apply in this case. Additionally, in the judgement, the only time the web site is described as a search engine is when directly quoting Mr. O'Dwyer's lawyers. Every other mention in the judgement uses the more neutral "web site." Finally, in that same judgement, the prosecution called TVShack a "linking site." Why not use that terminology instead? Seems to me the only truly neutral term to use in the article is "web site." The only people using the term "search engine" are Mr. O'Dwyer's supporters and lawyers. I would be convinced if you could produce a reliable source that calls the site a "search engine" without quoting Mr. O'Dwyer's supporters or lawyers. In return I will provide a list of sources that have named it a "link site" or "linking site." Note: many of these articles come from sites that are admitted piracy apologists, and even they use the "linking site" terminology to describe the TVShack web site. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Yourself using the derogatory term 'piracy apologists' instantly discredits your opinion on this matter. So we will revert to facts and facts alone. TV Shack fits the correct definition of 'search engine':

"search engine noun Computing noun: search engine; plural noun: search engines; noun: searchengine; plural noun: searchengines

   1.
   a program that searches for and identifies items in a database that correspond to keywords or characters specified by the user, used especially for finding particular sites on the Internet."

TV Shack offered 'did you mean?' suggestions as Google does. The term linking website has no meaning, every web site on the internet contains hyperlinks. When a service's primary function the indexing of external resources, categorizing them and outputting relevant through a search algorithm, it is indeed a search engine.

Sorry, no. My personal opinions on piracy are irrelevant, and do not credit or discredit my editing in this article. Please assume good faith, and focus on the content, not the editor. I did not mean "piracy apologist" in a derogatory way, but in an academic one. Please see the article apologetics if you are confused. Perhaps you would prefer copyright critic? Champion of copyright reform? Either way, we focus on what the sources say, not your personal interpretations. What you are doing in quoting a definition is essentially original research, which is addressed in one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. We could debate on whether TVShack meets the definition of a search engine, but that's not up to us as editors. This is why I asked for you to "produce a reliable source that calls the site a 'search engine' without quoting Mr. O'Dwyer's supporters or lawyers." You have yet to do so. I can see that you have made only a handful of contributions in the article space, and that's completely fine. We all have to start somewhere. But I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with the core content policies -- Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, and Verifiability before making further edits in the article space. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I might have located where our differences lie. You know that TVShack was not a program, right? The definition you gave was for search engine programs. Most web sites utilize search engines, including Wikipedia. That does not mean that all web sites with search functionality are considered "web search engines." TVShack seems to fit more cleanly into the definition of a web directory. I would argue that the sources I found define TVShack as a "linking site," and you would no doubt disagree. You would argue that TVShack is primarily a "search engine," and I would disagree. But can we both agree that it is a web site? That seems to be the most neutral term to use here. The New York Times called it a web site. [8] The Guardian called it a website. [9] Even Jimmy Wales' online petition titled "Stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer to the USA" called it a website. [10] Why do you insist on calling it a search engine? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Search Engine vs. Website -- Revisited

Okay. Let's talk about definitions. Some editors on this page want to call TVShack a "Search Engine." I would prefer to call it a web site, because the vast majority of sources I found call it a web site. Here are the list of sources that I have found:

1. The New York Times -- "At issue is a Web site he started that helped visitors find American movies and television shows online."
2. BBC News -- "Richard O'Dwyer, 23, set up the TVShack website which US authorities say hosts links to pirated copyrighted films and television programmes."
3. The Guardian -- "O'Dwyer ran a website called TVShack which provided links to other sites where users could download pirated versions of films and television shows."
4. The Telegraph -- "Until last November he ran TVShack, a popular website offering lists of links to other websites that carried unlawful copies of the latest Hollywood blockbusters and television hits such as The Hangover and Lost."
5. Daily Mail -- "Richard O’Dwyer, 23, is accused of running a website which directed users to other sites where they can download films illegally."
6. The Register -- "Richard O'Dwyer, the Briton who ran one of the world's most popular download links websites, must cough up £20,000 after avoiding extradition in a bargain with US authorities."
7. The Los Angeles Times -- "His offense: creating a website that featured links to pirated movies and TV shows."
8. TorrentFreak.com -- "In 2011, Richard O’Dwyer was arrested by police in the UK for his part in the operations of TVShack, a site that listed user-submitted links to TV-shows."
9. PC Pro -- "Richard O'Dwyer faces extradition after the Southern District Court in New York brought two charges relating to copyright infringement on his TVShack.net website, which provided links to content."
10. Wired -- "O'Dwyer's website, TVShack, did not host any copyright-infringing content: it was an aggregation tool, which provided links to other websites which hosted pirated copies of TV shows and movies."
11. ArsTechnica "TVShack.net didn't directly host possibly infringing materials, but the site did link to such videos."
12. Jimmy Wales -- "He is facing extradition to the USA and up to ten years in prison, for creating a website – TVShack.net – which linked (similar to a search-engine) to places to watch TV and movies online."
13. Daily Mirror -- "A student who created a website which helped people watch films and TV shows for free can be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement allegations, a court ruled today."
14. The Wire -- "This is really weird since O'Dwyer lives in the U.K., runs the website in the U.K., did not use servers in the United States and did not actually host any illegal content on them."
15. Metro -- "A student who created the TVShack website that streamed free films and TV shows online can be extradited to the US for trial, a court ruled today."
16. Deadline "In 2010, the now 23-year-old came under fire for hosting TVShack, a website that listed links to sites where users could access movies and TV shows – although it did not host any content itself."

Now, let's see how these sources use the "search engine" claim:

1. "Mr. O’Dwyer’s backers say his site was effectively a search engine."
2. No mention.
3. No mention.
4. No mention.
5. No mention.
6. No mention.
7. No mention.
8. No mention.
9. No mention.
10. No mention.
11. No mention.
12. "...which linked (similar to a search-engine) to places to watch TV and movies online." (note: "similar to a search-engine" is not the same thing as "actually a search engine"
13. No mention.
14. No mention.
15. "His lawyer, Ben Cooper, has argued that the site itself did not store copyrighted material, but instead pointed users in the direction of other sites, in a way comparable to search engines Google and Yahoo."
16. "In January, his attorney said O’Dwyer had done nothing more than Google or Yahoo search engines."

That's it from the sources I found. His backers call it a search engine. Jimmy Wales (another backer) said it's like a search engine. His lawyer said it was comparable to a search engine.

But I've found more mentions of the definition "search engine" in other articles. Here they are, with context:

• "O'Dwyer's lawyers said the site was little different from a search engine like Google and was thus most likely not illegal under UK law." [11]
• "His lawyers argue that his site was simply providing links, just like Google or any other search engine." [12]
• "It was a 'human-powered search engine' for people looking for places to watch films, TV and documentaries online." [13] (note: a human-powered search engine" is more accurately defined as a web directory)
• "O'Dwyer’s lawyers argued the site was negligibly different from a search engine such as Google and was therefore unlikely to be construed as illegal under UK law." [14]
• "O'Dwyer gave evidence that TVShack 'worked exactly like the Google search engine... (it).... directed users through the use of searches to websites... at no point was there any infringing material, such as movies or programmes on my server. It just directed users to other websites by providing the link.'" [15]
• "Mr O'Dwyer’s lawyer Ben Cooper said the site did not store copyright material itself, and operated in the same way as search engines such as Google and Yahoo." [16]

And I could go on. Essentially, calling the site a "search engine" is expressly pushing a point of view that is only claimed by Mr. O'Dwyer's supporters. Calling TVShack a "website" is, in my view, the only acceptable and neutral term to use. But I'm willing to listen to opposing arguments, backed with similarly reliable sources. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm basically arguing with myself now, so I shall proceed because I'm totally winning (I'm defeating myself in a battle of wits). I located some references that called TVShack a "linking site." I'm not suggesting that we change the definition to linking site, because I believe that would violate WP:NPOV, but I wanted to demonstrate that the same logic used to classify the website as a "search engine" could likewise be used to classify the site as a "linking site." In fact, I think that, based on the sources, a stronger case could be made to call TVShack a linking site rather than a search engine. But I digress. Here are the sources:

1. The Register -- "TVShack was a linking site which was not hosted in the US and did not store any copyright material."
2. Forbes -- "The US government sought the extradition of a British college student for operating a 'link site.'"
3. Ars Technica -- "His attorney argued that O'Dwyer should not be sent to the United States because operating a 'link site,' which links to copies of copyrighted movies but does not actually host them, is not a crime under British law."
4. Techdirt -- "TVShack did not host any content and was merely a linking site, which raised questions (as with other seizures) about whether or not it actually violated US copyright law."
5. Wired -- "O'Dwyer's site was a 'linking site' that did not host infringing content itself, and his lawyer compared it to Google, which also links to copyrighted content."
6. US v. O'Dwyer Criminal Complaint -- "TVShack.net was a 'linking' website."
7. TorrentFreak -- "Richard O’Dwyer, the UK-based ex-administrator of the video linking website TVShack, will not be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement charges."
8. The Internet Police: How Crime Went Online, and the Cops Followed -- "The United States spent two years seeking to extradite a University of Sheffield student named Richard o'Dwyer, who ran a 'linking site' (that is, it hosted no content directly, pointing instead to files stored on sites like Megaupload) called TV Shack."
9. Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess -- "Also indicted in 2011 was Richard O'Dwyer, a British college student who operated a link site called TV Shack."
10. US Department of Justice "Six of the websites, TVSHACK.NET, MOVIES-LINKS.TV, FILESPUMP.COM, NOW-MOVIES.COM, PLANETMOVIEZ.COM, and THEPIRATECITY.ORG, are 'linking websites', which provide access, or 'links,' to other websites where pirated movies and television programs are stored."

What do you say to that, possible-future-editor-who-might-decide-to-revert-the-edits-I-have-made-to-this-article? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Another revert from a different user, this time with a reference for clarification. Said reference is an archived image from Richard O'Dwyer's personal website describing TVShack as a "Search engine." I love it. Fantastic detective work. I completely agree that Richard O'Dwyer believes that TVShack is a search engine. That fact has never been in dispute. However, Mr. O'Dwyer's personal belief is completely irrelevant when assigning a definition to TVShack. It's the same reason that the murder of Lana Clarkson hasn't been labeled a "suicide" because of the claims of Phil Spector's defense attorney. Also, if you head over to WP:BLPSPS, you'll see that self-published sources should never be used in a biographies of living persons article. Of course, if you actually cared to read policy, you might claim that it falls under WP:SELFPUB, but it does not. It fails points 1, 2, and 4. The reference you provided is not about Richard O'Dwyer, it is about TVShack, so WP:SELFPUB does not apply. If you'd referenced biographical data then it would be correct to use a self-published source. But the definition of the website TVShack is not biographical material. But I have a feeling the search engine edit will just be reverted ad infinitum by a revolving door of single purpose accounts. Perhaps I'll try a WP:RFC. Sure. Why not. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC -- TVShack.net definition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should TVShack.net be defined as a "search engine," "linking site," or "website"?" ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

What do reliable sources call it?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a fairly thorough breakdown of the reliable sources here: Talk:Richard O'Dwyer#Search Engine vs. Website -- Revisited. If you don't feel like reading that wall of text, I would say that most third-party reliable news sources, such as the New York Times, The Guardian, BBC News, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Mirror, and the LA Times use the term "website" (or "web site"). The term "search engine" was only used in reference to claims made by Mr. O'Dwyer, his supporters, or his lawyer. It was never used as an adjective by the third-party author of an article. Several less-reliable sources, such as Wired, Techdirt, Forbes, The Register, Ars Technica, TorrentFreak, and two books used the definition "linking site." I am of the opinion that website is the most neutral term to use, even though it's less descriptive than might be desired. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I lay the owners claims against wp:sps and I don't see a violation. Google is a serach engine. It's also a website. Which do we call it? Both is fine because Google is both.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we describe it as a website and a search engine? I don't see any reason why we can't use two terms to describe it. Meatsgains (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment What is obvious, is obvious. This was a website and linking site (which seems to be defunct now, btw). Just call it what the sources call it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Website (or site) is best; most of the RS use that term because it's neutral. That lets the reader categorize it using the description of the site. That said, there should be a better description of it in the first paragraph, such as "website that provided links to TV episodes." Any single term, like "search engine" or "linking site" doesn't give the reader an idea of what the site did or why it was controversial. Also, "search engine" seems to have been used to stress the fact that the site did not host content. It's not necessary to stress that here. Roches (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I agree, this seemed fairly obvious when I came across it. Mr. O'Dwyer ran a website. He claimed it was a search engine, while others claimed it was a linking site. This has made the classification of the TVShack website unusually contentious, but it was a key point of his defense. If the website was a search engine, then it was a "mere conduit" for infringing content, and the site was no more illegal than Google. If the website was a linking site, then the owner is more culpable for the copyright infringement. District Judge Purdy ultimately ruled against the "mere conduit" defense, claiming that Mr. O'Dwyer exercised too much control over the site content. I would like to create or modify an existing section under Legal Objections detailing both arguments for this issue, as well as a short summary of the site in the lead. It's been difficult to even get in a single edit, however, as my attempts have been constantly reverted by a handful of single purpose accounts who refuse to engage on this talk page and it's become a messy revert war. But that's a different issue. I just wanted to make sure I had some kind of consensus before moving forward. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Website appears to be what the better RS are using, and if the courts found that O'Dwyer had control over content then that would exclude "search engine". As Roches comments above, a slight expansion in the lede would be useful to readers. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Website at the risk of being boring, but I am only here for the RFC. Even if it is a search engine or linking site, in neutral terms it still is a website. Whether you need to get more specific about the functions and facilities is something that should depend on specific contexts. If you state in a given context that it is a search engine, you have to justify the description if it is contentious. That it is a website is uncontentious. JonRichfield (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Website, per the discussion above, since the site is now defunct.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 05:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SDNY and Charges

The SDNY court did not "charge" him. The US Attorney (prosecutor) charges people, not the court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.153.11 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct. My mistake. I believed the PC Pro reference without giving full and proper context. The perils of using less-than-reliable sources. Technically it was the "United States Department of Justice Special Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York." Personally I'd love to use the acronym "USDoJSAUSAUSAOSDNY", but I think it's just shorten it to United States Department of Justice. Thanks for the feedback! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Richard O'Dwyer

Cyberbot II has detected links on Richard O'Dwyer which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Richard O'Dwyer

Cyberbot II has detected links on Richard O'Dwyer which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard O'Dwyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/June10/websitedomainnameseizurepr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard O'Dwyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115192326/http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf to http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)