Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#31

Post by chrischen » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 11:21 AM UTC

junto wrote: post #25

CJefferson wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 genera…

In the case of bit.ly: since bit.ly is used for legitimate purposes other than piracy, it can be protected by the DMCA if they comply with takedown requests. However a site which has no purpose other than to facilitate copyright infringement might be considered illegal.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#32

Post by slavak » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 11:22 AM UTC

The idea that you can be extradited to a country you don't live in for something that isn't even a crime which was committed somewhere else is, as they say, completely fucked.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#33

Post by knotty66 » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 11:26 AM UTC

rytis wrote: post #3

A Home Office spokesman said: "We have effective, fair and balanced extradition arrangements with the US [...] People who have committed serious offences such as murder, rape, other sex crimes and fraud [...] Good to know. Running a search engine can be compared to murder, rape, etc...

"fair and balanced extradition arrangements with the US"

I'm sorry, what? These extradition arrangements are completely lopsided and need to be reformed.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#34

Post by yitchelle » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 11:31 AM UTC

I am not a lawyer nor do I understand the legal aspects, but if this fella's site only offers links to songs, then it strikes me that search companies like Google, Bing etc may be on same murky legal grounds. Do a search for the mp3 from your favourite artist, and some warez sites will pop up offering links to your artists' songs.

Is this just a case of a bully picking on someone who has little hope of defending himself?

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#35

Post by henrikeh » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 11:37 AM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #27

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…

> 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.

I can't following your reasoning on this. Is your point that copyright laws have been instated unethically?

Why does it matter that they are arbitrary if people generally agree that copyright is good?

> 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

Seriously? So, if people choose to consume someone's work, yet avoid paying for it, then it's the content creators fault?

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#36

Post by RivieraKid » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 11:39 AM UTC

This is outrageous and another example revealing the bad state of democracy in these two countries. The government does the exact opposite of what vast majority of citizens want. I would never vote again political parties that are in government and don't do anything to stop this.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#37

Post by spitx » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 11:41 AM UTC

A not-so entirely tangential thought:

Would Jimmy Wales have taken up this cause if Richard O'Dwyer wasn't a put-together specimen? You know if he was a socially-awkward, not-sure-of-himself, social-grace-lacking and all around clumsy-looking hacker. If the answer to this was manifestly in the affirmative, the question wouldn't be begging to be asked.

This is a no-lose proposition for Jimmy. Whether the guy is actually extradited or worse convicted, this low hanging PR fruit is already in Jimmy's satchel.

This is not to cast a doubt on JW's intentions.

However, holding all details of the alleged crime constant, I bet he wouldn't touch this case with a 10 foot pole if the guy didn't fit the archetype that wouldn't soil JW's image.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#38

Post by aes256 » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 11:52 AM UTC

mixmax wrote: post #22

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 rea…

> 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.

The site was not a search engine.

It may have had a search function, but the links were added manually by contributors (who O'Dwyer selected), and O'Dwyer exerted a great deal of control over the content that was included on the site.

It was almost certainly illegal in the US (authorising copyright infringement). A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law (O'Dwyer's editorial control over the site prevented him from using a "mere conduit" defence) and thus approved the extradition.

O'Dwyer is bang to rights as far as the law currently stands. At this point it's more a case of challenging the absurdity of the law (simply linking to infringing material being an offence) and the absurdity of extraditing a young man to be tried in a foreign court under a foreign jurisdiction for such an offence.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#39

Post by gouranga » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 11:56 AM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #30

gouranga wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

You are unlikely to be trialled with jury. It'll be sealed or with a magistrate.

There's nothing to back it up unfortunately other than a number of horror stories over the years of people getting shafted. The law is extremely biased towards those with money unless its a high profile case.

Duty solicitors are private solicitors but from direct experience, they aren't always neutral. Its bad when you find your duty solicitor in the pub with the arresting officer (I was arrested and charged with assault a few years ago when I disabled someone assaulting my wife). That made an interesting picture to show in court I will say.

The rationale for police hatred is that they are less likely to be biased against you.

The human race is particularly self serving I find which is the issue.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#40

Post by minikomi » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 11:57 AM UTC

yitchelle wrote: post #34

I am not a lawyer nor do I understand the legal aspects, but if this fella's site only offers links to songs, then it strikes me that search companies like Google, Bing etc may be on same murky legal grounds. Do a search for the mp3 from your favourite artist, and some warez sites will pop up offering links to your artists' songs. Is this just a case of a bully picking on someone who has little hope of defending hims…

And in regards to the argument that the intent of the site was to encourage copyright infringement, as a thought experiment, what is the legality of a site which provides links to copyright material claiming the intent to be helping copyright holders find infringing material?