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

81–90 of 103 posts

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#81

Post by Joakal »

planetguy wrote: post #62

I think that those agitating for meaningful copyright reform and against silly copyright infringement cases aren't doing themselves a favour when they start agitating in favour of the actual, honest-to-god, in-it-for-the-money large-scale pirates who make hundreds of thousands of pounds off infringing on other peoples' copyright. This guy is scum. Also, how is this guy a "hacker"?

This person is an example of an entrepreneur in UK that is being extradited for a non-serious crime. I'm not sure how the advocates are portrayed badly when the case appears unjust, no matter how many links the person allowed on their website. What about extraditing a person who did not do it for the money, would that still be acceptable for you?

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#82

Post by Joakal »

epo wrote: post #53

Starting 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.

In USA, the politicians are only obliged to respond publicly on website.

However, in UK and some other countries, a petition would be read out in parliament and get you a response where other members of government could discuss it.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#83

Post by rwallace »

henrikeh wrote: post #35
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…

Copyright laws, at least in their current form, most certainly have been instated unethically, specifically by the process of "lobbying," which nowadays is a euphemism for technically-legal bribery and corruption, a subversion of the democratic process.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#84

Post by Joakal »

rplnt wrote: post #52
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…

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).

Yes, copyrighted content that the copyright owners had hosted. Now they can't access it. Your point is?

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#85

Post by jahewson »

TruthElixirX wrote: post #76
jahewson wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the memo, but it still sucks. Juristiction depends on which country the "harm" occurred. For example, if I fire a rocket at another country, then I've certainly committed a crime within its boundaries, despite never having set foot there. His website was accessible in the US by design (one could forbid US visitors in the ToS, and by geoip), and the "harm" from his supposed crime occurred, for those US user…

>His website was accessible in the US by design (one could forbid US visitors in the ToS, and by geoip), and the "harm" from his supposed crime occurred, for those US users, in the US, not inside his server. No one should have to concern themselves with the laws of every nation on Earth when building a website. There is usually not enough time in your life to consider the laws from only your home country.

Indeed. International copyright law needs revising - but I don't think we'll all be agreeing on anything soon, especially after the whole SOPA debacle.

If you run a dubious website, your only option is to block all countries other than your own, and provide a notice to that effect.

Is it silly? I dont know. It's hard to argue that you have the right to interact with a country's inhabitants but that the country cannot govern those interactions. Though the governing needs to be fair...

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#86

Post by jiggy2011 »

mryan wrote: post #56
gouranga wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What if they were drinking buddies though and had known each other since childhood or somesuch?

Is there a rule that says a criminal defence solicitor can never be in a social setting with a Police Officer?

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#87

Post by planetguy »

Joakal wrote: post #81
planetguy wrote: post #62

I think that those agitating for meaningful copyright reform and against silly copyright infringement cases aren't doing themselves a favour when they start agitating in favour of the actual, honest-to-god, in-it-for-the-money large-scale pirates who make hundreds of thousands of pounds off infringing on other peoples' copyright. This guy is scum. Also, how is this guy a "hacker"?

This person is an example of an entrepreneur in UK that is being extradited for a non-serious crime. I'm not sure how the advocates are portrayed badly when the case appears unjust, no matter how many links the person allowed on their website. What about extraditing a person who did not do it for the money, would that still be acceptable for you?

> for a non-serious crime

A non-serious crime? C'mon, anytime you're making hundreds of thousands of pounds by doing something illegal you're into reasonably serious crime territory. You can argue that the law should be changed if you like, but until it is, people who decide to make a living by breaking it for their own personal gain are criminals and I don't have sympathy for 'em.

That he did it for the money isn't necessary for me to want to see him face charges, but it certainly gives an idea of the scale of the problem. Small scale personal-use privacy shouldn't be the subject of this kind of action, but on that kind of scale it's a different matter.

As to the question of whether he should be extradited, though... well, that's not my place to say. I think he should be treated perfectly in accordance with British law, and I don't know British extradition law but it can be assumed that the judge who will hear his case does. Who am I to try to tell a British judge how to apply British law? Stop telling judges what to do.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#88

Post by planetguy »

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…

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

I'm not convinced that there's a difference, legally or ethically, though it would be interesting to see it play out in a court of law.

>I do not believe there is anything inherently unethical about copyright infringement in pirating movies or tv shows

Y'see, the problem is that following up a defence of "this isn't quite illegal" with a defence of "this shouldn't be illegal" tends to weaken both cases.

I'd listen to the opinions of internet-people on the subject of copyright a lot more often if they didn't always seem to boil down to "Anything that I personally think I should be allowed to get away with ought to be legal"

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#89

Post by nicholassmith »

jahewson wrote: post #69
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…

You missed the memo, but it still sucks. Juristiction depends on which country the "harm" occurred. For example, if I fire a rocket at another country, then I've certainly committed a crime within its boundaries, despite never having set foot there. His website was accessible in the US by design (one could forbid US visitors in the ToS, and by geoip), and the "harm" from his supposed crime occurred, for those US user…

True enough, but in this case he didn't directly cause harm and I imagine it'd never go through the courts all the way. Unless we start saying that Google directly causes harm and so on, it's the same purpose and Google profits the same, and oddly enough they're based on US soil.

As a British citizen I'm truly sickened by the idea that someone can be extradited over something which is potentially not even a crime, when the biggest name in the game is still sat with million dollar legal teams ready to pounce if they get pulled up on it.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#90

Post by jakejake »

aes256 wrote: post #42
Evernoob wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he was a scared kid who wanted this to go away, and the police told him it would if he just answer their questions and not wait the "2 hours" for the lawyer. He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign country for a decade for posting links on the internet.

> He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign country for a decade for posting links on the internet. He knew what he was doing. He is alleged to have made ~£150,000 in advertising revenue from the site. He had his TVShack.net domain seized by ICE in June 2010. Any kid simply making a mistake would have given up at that point. Instead, within a matter of days he set the site up again on…

Is this actually true? Are there some links to back it up?
Post reply on HN