Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

change.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

#11

Post by vladd »

duiker101 wrote: post #10
vladd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has a registered DMCA agent, includes a DMCA dashboard ( https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard?hl=en ) and replies to take-down requests. I imagine good faith applies in Google's case and they are protected by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29 .

From the message of the petition it appears that also him complied with take-down requests. Let's say the truth that we all know... Google, is google, they cannot go against it because it's too big, it's easier to bully with someone smaller than you.

I don't know if you're from US, but that's not how things work: don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bullshit in the US regarding SOPA, how laws are made, how lobbying works, but legal-wise, the more money you have, more of a target you are, so if Google were to do illegal things per US legislation, they would be sued even faster than this kid.

I suspect the main difference in Google versus a specifically-made torrents search engine is the good faith criteria that would apply to Google. Also, it's not enough to reply to take-down requests in order to plea safe harbor protection, you actually need to have a registered agent and pay the registration fee (around $100).

Re: Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

#12

Post by cf0ed2aa-bdf5 »

vladd wrote: post #8
rcgs wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does Google. Your point?

Google has a registered DMCA agent, includes a DMCA dashboard ( https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard?hl=en ) and replies to take-down requests. I imagine good faith applies in Google's case and they are protected by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29 .

And all that is (or should be) completely irrelevant since we are talking about a British guy hosting a website that not primarily targeted US audience.

I am not a lawyer but I am fairly sure O'Dwyer does not have to abide the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Google, as an American Website, however has to.

Re: Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

#13

Post by nodata »

gouranga wrote: post #9
duiker101 wrote: post #3

This is literally unbelievable. I was shocked when the US attacked Kim Dotcom, but you know... he is a big fish and anyway i hope he will be able to fight back. But this is gone too much further. They are trying to rule the world in this way. This people gained too much power. I am really frightened for our future.

> This people gained too much power. I am really frightened for our future. Agreed entirely. Unfortunately, as history likes to remind us, the only way to resolve these issues is legitimate bloody and violent rebellion. Unfortunately there are too many morons staggering in the dark and too many weapons in the hands of the powerful for this to work any more. However as the balance of power changes, people have nothing…

> as history likes to remind us, the only way to resolve these issues is legitimate bloody and violent rebellion.

I don't like this statement. It removes the thinking behind what a better, non-bloody, non-violent alternative could be.

Re: Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

#14

Post by gouranga »

nodata wrote: post #13
gouranga wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This people gained too much power. I am really frightened for our future. Agreed entirely. Unfortunately, as history likes to remind us, the only way to resolve these issues is legitimate bloody and violent rebellion. Unfortunately there are too many morons staggering in the dark and too many weapons in the hands of the powerful for this to work any more. However as the balance of power changes, people have nothing…

> as history likes to remind us, the only way to resolve these issues is legitimate bloody and violent rebellion. I don't like this statement. It removes the thinking behind what a better, non-bloody, non-violent alternative could be.

Sorry but you are too much of an idealist and nowhere near a realist.

a) You have to work with the rest of society which doesn't have the same moral standard as you (or me). Consider the London riots.

b) You would be killed without them so much as blinking. Consider Afghanistan civilian drone attacks and the lack of accountability around it and the rapier missiles sitting on top of council blocks just for the olympics and 10k troops stationed at Grenwich barracks.

I'd like it to be that way but it's just not realistic.

Hmm...

Re: Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

#15

Post by jsvaughan »

vladd wrote: post #8
rcgs wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does Google. Your point?

Google has a registered DMCA agent, includes a DMCA dashboard ( https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard?hl=en ) and replies to take-down requests. I imagine good faith applies in Google's case and they are protected by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29 .

Google also hosts the actual content. This guy didn't.

Re: Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

#16

Post by vladd »

cf0ed2aa-bdf5 wrote: post #12
vladd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has a registered DMCA agent, includes a DMCA dashboard ( https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard?hl=en ) and replies to take-down requests. I imagine good faith applies in Google's case and they are protected by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29 .

And all that is (or should be) completely irrelevant since we are talking about a British guy hosting a website that not primarily targeted US audience. I am not a lawyer but I am fairly sure O'Dwyer does not have to abide the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Google, as an American Website, however has to.

According to the Extradition Act 2003 of the UK Parliament [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 , http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/UK_USA_extradition.p... ], article 2.1, "An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.".

I suspect the UK law that was broken was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010 and that is being used by US to request the extradition.

Once on US territory, US law would apply.

At that level of income, a significant part of his audience could be proven to be from US. It would also matter if he used US servers, US registrars (.net is controlled by Verisign which is an American corporation) and so on, but I doubt prosecutors would have much issues in proving US jurisdiction once he's in USA.

Re: Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

#17

Post by [deleted] »

cf0ed2aa-bdf5 wrote: post #12
vladd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has a registered DMCA agent, includes a DMCA dashboard ( https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard?hl=en ) and replies to take-down requests. I imagine good faith applies in Google's case and they are protected by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29 .

And all that is (or should be) completely irrelevant since we are talking about a British guy hosting a website that not primarily targeted US audience. I am not a lawyer but I am fairly sure O'Dwyer does not have to abide the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Google, as an American Website, however has to.

[deleted]

Re: Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

#18

Post by ajuc »

gouranga wrote: post #14
nodata wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as history likes to remind us, the only way to resolve these issues is legitimate bloody and violent rebellion. I don't like this statement. It removes the thinking behind what a better, non-bloody, non-violent alternative could be.

Sorry but you are too much of an idealist and nowhere near a realist. a) You have to work with the rest of society which doesn't have the same moral standard as you (or me). Consider the London riots. b) You would be killed without them so much as blinking. Consider Afghanistan civilian drone attacks and the lack of accountability around it and the rapier missiles sitting on top of council blocks just for the olympic…

Somehow people protested all over Europe againist ACTA, and governments backed off, and nobody got killed by predator drones or otherwise.

Governments and publishers want to censor internet, but we're not yet at the point of no return, we can still fight them with demonstrations and petitions and watching their hands. And that's what we should be doing.

Re: Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

#19

Post by wormwood28 »

benhalllondon wrote: post #4

Just one fact/opinion to add that is always missed out on the petitions etc: "The case was brought by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned more than $230,000 (£147,000) in advertising revenue before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name in June 2010." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-1826680... The guy was earnin…

Now I don't think this guy should be extradited, but it is worth taking a look at what his site was. Here is the last capture I could find in the way back machine. This doesn't look like a search engine to me, more like a curated collection of links to copyrighted TV shows and movies. I couldn't say whether he was 'trying to follow the law' or not.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090629190857/http://tvshack.net...

The FAQ is particularly amusing:

""" 7- Why are there so many Megavideo hosted videos on TV Shack? Can't you use another video host?

A: TV Shack staff is currently working toward providing many different alternatives to hosting sites that are accepted for submission. There is a movement taking place (thanks to our regulars) to provide an alternate link for all Megavideo links on the website as evidenced by The Megavideo Replacement Initiative. We have very little control over where videos are hosted being that we are not the ones hosting the videos ourselves. TV Shack simply links to these hosting sites. Nevertheless, please ask yourselves, would you rather not watch the video at all? Megavideo has "bad" aspects to it, such as limiting the time that you can watch. Fortunately, it also has very good aspects, such as good quality, very fast streaming and fast upload abilities.

Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but this is a normal, typical price). The following prices are in US dollars!

Prices for 1 adult to go to the movie theater:

Typical US movie theater ticket: $10 Typical US nacho-coke or popcorn-coke combo: $10 Typical US parking (if it's in garage such as at the mall): $5

Total for 1 adult to go to the movies: $25

Prices for 1 season of a popular show:

Scrubs - The Complete First Season (2001) bought at Walmart (link) (it's the cheapest place from what I have seen and heard):

Discounted: $34.86 List Price: $49.99

So, as you see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of time.

In other words, yes, we will try to find videos on other hosts for our users. We will even try to provide alternate links for you to watch the video on whichever host you enjoy. However, when there is no other host which has the video, we will link to Megavideo because something is better than nothing (or having to spend quite a bit of money on it). """

Re: Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

#20

Post by gouranga »

ajuc wrote: post #18
gouranga wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but you are too much of an idealist and nowhere near a realist. a) You have to work with the rest of society which doesn't have the same moral standard as you (or me). Consider the London riots. b) You would be killed without them so much as blinking. Consider Afghanistan civilian drone attacks and the lack of accountability around it and the rapier missiles sitting on top of council blocks just for the olympic…

Somehow people protested all over Europe againist ACTA, and governments backed off, and nobody got killed by predator drones or otherwise. Governments and publishers want to censor internet, but we're not yet at the point of no return, we can still fight them with demonstrations and petitions and watching their hands. And that's what we should be doing.

That's ACTA, which is a trivial distraction from extraditions at the moment. Its a pacifier rather than a major policy change.
Post reply on HN