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

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#91

Post by FireBeyond »

sandollars wrote: post #29
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.

2007 was hardly "a more innocent time" for the Internet.

Napster had been shutdown years before and was still winding through the courts, for example, and The Pirate Bay was an (Internet) household name.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#92

Post by cabalamat »

aes256 wrote: post #38
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 s…

> A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law

A questionable assertion, given that:

1. in the only BitTorrent tracker case to have come to court, Oink, the defendant was found not guilty http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6998784/Oink-mu...

2. the CPS (UK prosecuting authority) regard running a BitTorrent tracker to be "a civil rather than a criminal matter" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8345801/Prosecuto...

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#93

Post by TruthElixirX »

jahewson wrote: post #85
TruthElixirX wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Where does the government derive authority to govern interactions where only half take place inside their borders?

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#94

Post by aes256 »

mixmax wrote: post #47
aes256 wrote: post #44

Earlier 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.

As reitzensteinm pointed out, I'm not expressing my own opinion either way.

I'm simply pointing out that, under the current extradition treaty between the UK and US, O'Dwyer doesn't have a leg to stand on. Those in disagreement with the course of proceedings need to work to change the system (e.g. removing the offence of facilitating copyright infringement, if you disagree with the principle of people being prosecuted for simply linking to infringing material) rather than seeking an exception for a particular case.

I think the point you were trying to elicit with your Pakistan example is that US citizens should not be extradited to Pakistan to face charges there for things that do not constitute criminal offences in the US. This is taken care of by the 'double criminality' clauses that most countries include in their extradition treaties.

O'Dwyer is in the somewhat unique position that, although it has been ruled that the allegations against him, if true, constitute criminal offences in both the UK and US, the former has shown no interest in prosecuting, but the latter has, so he is facing extradition...

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#95

Post by aes256 »

cabalamat wrote: post #92
aes256 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law A questionable assertion, given that: 1. in the only BitTorrent tracker case to have come to court, Oink, the defendant was found not guilty http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6998784/Oink-mu... 2. the CPS (UK prosecuting authority) regard running a BitTorrent tracker to be "a civil rather than a criminal mat…

> A questionable assertion

It's not my assertion, but that of District Judge Quentin Purdy:

> The judge agreed with John Jones, barrister for the United States government, that “because he was intimately involved in deciding who was allowed to post links on the TVShack websites, which links would be posted”, Mr O’Dwyer’s alleged conduct was a criminal offence under British copyright law.

> In its argument the defence had cited the 2010 case of TV-Links, a website that offered a similar directory of links to pirated material to TVShack. The judge found it was acting as a “mere conduit” and dismissed the criminal charges against the two men who operated TV-Links.

> Judge Purdy however found Mr O’Dwyer had exercised too much control over TVShack to successfully claim the same defence.

— http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-R...

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#96

Post by aes256 »

jahewson wrote: post #59
aes256 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"?

Apparently it does exist, although it's not well-defined under UK law:

"Iain Connor, who works for Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW, said that provisions within the UK's Extradition Act would give the legal means for suspected criminals to be summoned to the US.

The UK-US extradition treaty agreement allows either country to surrender a criminal suspect to the other if the crime carries a minimum punishment of a year's prison sentence.

"US companies are likely to try and secure a conviction in the US where they know that they could succeed on the basis of an offence of 'authorising copyright infringement' which in the UK is not a well defined offence," Connor said."

— http://www.out-law.com/page-12056

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#97

Post by aes256 »

jakejake wrote: post #90
aes256 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The judgment from the extradition hearing in Westminster Magistrates' Court contains all the accusations: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...

The relevant US attorney alleged over $230,000 in advertising payments had been identified. When questioned by City of London Police in November 2010, O'Dwyer allegedly admitted to "earning approximately £15,000 per month" from advertisements.

The shut down of TVShack.net and reemergence of the site on the TVShack.cc domain with the "F*ck the Police" banner is also described.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#98

Post by chrischen »

planetguy wrote: post #88
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 quit…

I'm not providing advice on how that case should be argued. My rant on copyright is separate.

Also, I don't understand, what is it that you are accusing me of trying to get away with?

If you think it's unethical to pirate movies please tell me why.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#99

Post by chrischen »

henrikeh wrote: post #55
chrischen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 toda…

> (Your lemonade analogy is ridiculous though. stealing=/=copying, artist distributing music on iTunes=/=leaving lemonade in the open)

I think you misunderstood that example. I wasn't comparing stealing lemonade to stealing music/movies/tv shows. I was trying to give an example of how you're not entitled to make money any way you want. Legally you have to pay for the lemonade, but that doesn't mean everyone will pay for it if I leave it out unattended. The only reason selling lemonade is viable is because it's easy to enforce payment by having someone at the lemonade stand.

Re: Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

#100

Post by jakejake »

aes256 wrote: post #97
jakejake wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this actually true? Are there some links to back it up?

The judgment from the extradition hearing in Westminster Magistrates' Court contains all the accusations: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... The relevant US attorney alleged over $230,000 in advertising payments had been identified. When questioned by City of London Police in November 2010, O'Dwyer allegedly admitted to "earning approximately £15,000 per month" from advertisements. The sh…

Thanks for the link. I guess you were originally down-voted because some people don't like a counter-opinion when it comes to file sharing. I have mixed feelings about sharing but the one thing I don't really like is when people are claiming to just "share" but are actually making a significant profit. I think if there is profit being made then at least a portion of it should be going to the artists.
Post reply on HN