[deleted]
Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
51–60 of 103 posts
Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
#52I 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…
Same for torrents and no one seems to care. On the other hand, I remember HN readers protecting megaupload (which DID host the copyrighted content).
Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
#53Starting a petition counts as help these days? Lets start a million petitions declaring hunger and poverty to be a bad thing, that'll have the problems cracked in no time.
Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
#54A 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 actual…
These accusations in the form of hypothesis are disgusting. Do you have any evidence to believe Wales decided to help based on the guy's "social grace"?
I never meant to assail his intentions in this case. However you can't refute the PR implications of what kind of candidate he throws his support behind.
As much as personalities like JW want to be associated with Net Neutrality initiatives and the like, they still have their apprehensions when it comes to associating themselves with the geek / hacker types.
Take this guy (picked totally at random from a YT search for Linux distro) in the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xeZaUyixvk
I am not entirely convinced if JW would have come out in his support if he were the culprit (keeping every other detail of the case untouched). Yes, I am suggesting that JW threw his weight in - atleast in some measure - due the seemingly well-adjusted looks of Richard O'Dwyer.
Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> I can't following your reasoning on this. Is your point that copyright laws have been instated unethically? No. My point is that copyright infringement is only wrong in the eyes of the law, and not wrong inherently. Since copyright infringement isn't inherently wrong, the law can be redefined to adjust to changing realities. > Seriously? So, if people choose to consume someone's work, yet avoid paying for it, then…
I think I see your point better now.
> It would be illogical, perhaps unethical even, for me to want more of that content while not supporting it in any way.
So what do you suggest instead? Instead of paying upfront, should the content production instead by shifted towards pay-as-you-like services? Micro-donations?
How would you make sure people paid for the content? A lot of people don't have the moral standard today to pay for music or movies they like and want more of - they copy because they can and it's cheaper.
(Your lemonade analogy is ridiculous though. stealing=/=copying, artist distributing music on iTunes=/=leaving lemonade in the open)
Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sol…
Getting off-topic here, but would you mind sharing what happened in your case, when the court was shown the picture of the officer/solicitor as drinking buddies?
Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
#57Earlier 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…
If you're arrested in the UK, you'll be asked if you want a solicitor present. If you do, then you'll not be questioned until your solicitor arrives and gives you legal advice.
This isn't brought up in court, as it's basically inadmissible. That said, there are a couple of situations where you can be questioned without a lawyer present - a lovely side-product of our "anti-terror" legislation.
Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then he should be tried in the UK. As it stands, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the UK have shown no interest in prosecuting O'Dwyer, but US authorities have. Perhaps O'Dwyer should be begging the CPS to prosecute him...
so if an American did something that was illegal in Pakistan and the US had no interest in prosecuting you'd find it natural that an American citizen should be extradited to Pakistan and prosecuted there? That's basically your argument.
No, the act has to be illegal in the UK too in order for the UK to extradite one of its citizens. e.g. you can't be extradited from the UK for insulting a Thai monarch.
Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
#59From 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 s…
Hmm. "authorising copyright infringement" - that's not a concept that exists, especially when we're talking about links. Perhaps you mean "aiding" or "facilitating"?
Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
#60From 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…
[deleted]