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

Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

huffingtonpost.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#21

Post by arethuza »

Jacqued wrote: post #18
jiggy2011 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing it's because a US company lodged the prosecution. Does anybody have any legal specifics here? I wonder if this is something that could happen to just random bittorrent users?

Legal specifics will depend on the country you live in. For example, this would not be possible in France (i live there) as the country never extradites any of its citizens for any reason - this will stand even if you committed a crime abroad and managed to get back, you could only be tried back home - As for the british kid, I support him 100% but it seems that the UK has signed very liberal agreements with the US c…

Out of interest, if a French citizen had done this, is there any real prospect that they would have been prosecuted?

NB It's not just France that has this policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Bars_to_extradition

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#22

Post by mixmax »

From the article it seems that this guy ran a search engine which might or might nor be illegal in the United States. However, he is British, most of the visitors are British and the servers are not in the United States, yet the US wants him extradited and tried in an American court.

This of course begs the question: If an American is running a site hosted in America with mostly American visitors how would the US react if a foreign government wanted to extradite him and possibly put him in jail for many years?

Probably not well.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#23

Post by gouranga »

mike_esspe wrote: post #16
gouranga wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but this is standard tactics for the police. The police (particularly the met) are out to get an easy prosecution and fulfill their statistical requirements rather than fair and honest justice. They will pretend to be your friend and offer you an easy way out that doesn't exist to do this. The best thing you can do is say nothing at all. Shut your gob and refuse to say a word. Everything should be replied to…

Relevant talk for those, who thinks it can be a good idea to talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

For reference, having been on the end of it (at Waterloo Station [1]), the police also use another tactic regularly which sucks but is easily dealt with:

"I'll pepper spray you if you don't make a statement and say you were resisting arrest".

Make a fucking scene: "shout as loud as possible what the officer said". When there are a hundred eyes on you, they back off.

[1] I was going camping and had a hatchet inside my bag (not easily accessible) and was stopped and searched. It is definitely legal to carry such things as long as there is a purpose for it.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#24

Post by nicholassmith »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #15
nicholassmith wrote: post #14

Whether or not what he did was a criminal or civil crime, he's not a US citizen, he didn't commit the crime within US boundaries (unless I've missed a memo), so he should not stand trial in a country that has nothing to do with the situation . The very idea that you can effectively be transported to a country that you have nothing to do with and committed no crime in just purely because the big boys with the big wall…

I'm guessing it's because a US company lodged the prosecution. Does anybody have any legal specifics here? I wonder if this is something that could happen to just random bittorrent users?

I think irregardless of the country of origin for the company making the complaint it should be held within the actual country the person resides in and has supposedly committed a crime, otherwise it ruins the system.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#25

Post by junto »

CJefferson wrote: post #19
junto wrote: post #8

So he built a crowd-sourced version of Google's video search? https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbm=vid&q=the+sopranos Since I am secondary linking to copyrighted content via Google, does that make the owners of this website liable to prosecution?

Your link doesn't seem to provide whole episodes, so might well fall under fair use. Also, the law understands intent. Google will take down links when requested. This guy purposefully ignored take-down requests, and was clearly purposefully organising his website to pirate copyrighted material. Now, if he should be taken to the US is another question, but in my opinion you shouldn't lower the debate by claiming what…

Google was a cheap shot, but to be honest, fair use is always debatable. I was more interested in the concept of secondary/proxy linking. What if the accused had linked via a bit.ly proxy for example? What if a search engine links to a bittorrent site, that then in turn linked to copyrighted content? E.g.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fthepirateba...

Just to play devil's advocate here (and out of general interest), but why should he follow DMCA? Isn't that a United States copyright law? Where's the jurisdiction here?

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#26

Post by gouranga »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #20
mike_esspe wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relevant talk for those, who thinks it can be a good idea to talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

I am not a lawyer, but it's worth noting that in the UK we don't have a 5th amendment. So I believe in some circumstances it can reflect badly on you if you refuse to answer questions from the Police especially where you could have provided information that would have been in your favour. For example, part of standard USA Miranda: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." British Equivale…

That is when you are questioned, not when you are arrested. You can keep quiet as long as you want. Technically the simpler your questioning and therefore statement is, the more ambiguity is available in court which goes in your favor whether guilty or innocent. During cross examination, any error you make ruins your credibility. No information = less errors. Choosing not to answer a question does not imply guilt - it's in the CPS prosecution guidelines.

With respect to solicitors, get a private one as well (preferably one who knowingly hates the police) rather than a duty solicitor as they are in the pockets of the police in the UK. They are one and the same - they eat, drink, socialise and funny handshake in the same locations.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#27

Post by chrischen »

This is particularly stupid because apparently the site only had links to copyright infringement.

This is just hollywood abusing their position to fight the advancement of tech and society simply because it disagrees with their business.

I do not believe there is anything inherently unethical about copyright infringement in pirating movies or tv shows. It's only technically illegal (and unethical in the sense that it's against the law) because copyright protections were put in artificially as a regulation to control for a certain outcome, like tariffs, taxes, or a dam. Hollywood simply won't admit the dam isn't working and trying to antagonize and criminalize those who go against the flow directed by regulation.

Calling pirating movies or tv shows unethical is only justifiable if pirating is akin to stealing in the physical sense, but it's not, and so it's not unethical. If someone were to project a copyrighted movie on to a giant wall, it's like saying all unauthorized onlookers are doing something unethical, when really it doesn't matter how many illegal onlookers there are as it won't affect the creator. If the content creator can't feed himself because everyone is "stealing" his work then he should a) find a new line of work or b) find a way to properly monetize it. Anything of value can be converted to money.

That being said I do think the content creators provide something valuable, and this should be protected. The issue here is that it's only going to get more expensive to enforce the current business models of content creators. The expense not only comes in the form of cost to gov't and the businesses themselves, but also in the form of DRM and other side effects of enforcement that really degrades the whole product chain. In the worst case scenario we never find a way to adequately support a film and tv industry. It's cultural benefits will be missed but we'll just shift our attention to something else. Life goes on. It's existence was probably arbitrary in the first place. Copyright laws didn't enable the TV & film industry. Enforceability of those laws did that, and the enforceability is eroding way whether they like it or not.

Summary: It's unethical to break the law (assuming the law was instated ethically), which, in theory, is a set of rules everyone agrees to play by. However pirating movies and tv shows is not inherently unethical as it is just an arbitrary law we put in place to control for an outcome. Linking to copyright infringement should be neither of these.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#28

Post by damian2000 »

It seems to me that the people behind this extradition attempt see that the value is not in the actual punishment for this unfortunate guy. It's in the publicity it gets and the ability to change people's actions worldwide in terms of piracy. Either way, its ethically wrong and deserves to fail. I have signed the petition.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#29

Post by sandollars »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #4

This is shocking and as a UK citizen angers me greatly, however I have to say this guy doesn't seem too smart. Firstly, building a website (presumably with the domain registered under his name) like this in the current legal climate is basically asking for trouble. Especially hosting it in Sweden (where the TBP was). Secondly , in the interview he asked the Police if he should get a solicitor, and decided not to get…

> Firstly, building a website like this in the current legal climate is basically asking for trouble.

His website has been in existence since 2007.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#30

Post by jiggy2011 »

gouranga wrote: post #26
jiggy2011 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a lawyer, but it's worth noting that in the UK we don't have a 5th amendment. So I believe in some circumstances it can reflect badly on you if you refuse to answer questions from the Police especially where you could have provided information that would have been in your favour. For example, part of standard USA Miranda: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." British Equivale…

That is when you are questioned, not when you are arrested. You can keep quiet as long as you want. Technically the simpler your questioning and therefore statement is, the more ambiguity is available in court which goes in your favor whether guilty or innocent. During cross examination, any error you make ruins your credibility. No information = less errors. Choosing not to answer a question does not imply guilt - i…

Choosing not to answer does not imply guilt, however simply stone walling with "no comment" is probably not as good an idea as it would be in the US (although a solicitor would be able to advise you on what you should answer).

I'm not sure whether "questioned" just means when you are at the police station or also during the time of the arrest. I would assume it could refer to both "why did you not bring this to the attention of the officer at the time of the arrest?".

Although I would imagine a rational jury would think that waiting for legal advice was a sensible thing to do.

Regards duty solicitors, I always thought that these were really private solicitors who were put on a rotation and were strictly kept separate from the police?

http://www.jfhlaw.co.uk/faqs/crime-faqs/what-is-a-duty-solic...

If there is a case of corruption here then that would be extremely worrying as the people most likely to be charged with crimes are also the people with the least ability to pay a private solicitor. Is there anything to back this up?

I'm also not sure I would want a solicitor who "hates" the police, I would want somebody motivated to help me, not get one over on someone else. The adversarial relationship between the police and solicitor should be professional and not personal.

Post reply on HN