6 ms·

Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker

181 points by sparknlaunch 14y ago

ColinWright 14y ago
Interview with Richard O'Dwyer here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155627 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155627
rytis 14y ago
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...
- cjrp 14y ago
  When I wrote to my MP (who simply forwarded the letter on to the Home Office), I got the same response.
- knotty66 14y ago
  "fair and balanced extradition arrangements with the US" I'm sorry, what? These extradition arrangements are completely lopsided and need to be reformed.
- jahewson 14y ago
  Of course that's fine until the other country starts repackaging all crimes as "serious", which is arguably what's happening here - copyright after all, is usually civil and not criminal until huge scale is reached (and actually involves handling copyrighted material).
jiggy2011 14y ago
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 one because he might have to wait a couple of hours? WTF? If you are arrested by the police and possibly being charged with an imprison-able offence (or really any offence) of course you should get a solicitor , why would this even be a question?
- Evernoob 14y ago
  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.
  - gouranga 14y ago
    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 with "no comment".
    - mike_esspe 14y ago
      Relevant talk for those, who thinks it can be a good idea to talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        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 Equivalent: "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" Having said that, I would personally keep quiet until you at least have a solicitor.
        gouranga 14y ago
junto 14y ago
So he built a crowd-sourced version of Google's video search? https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbm=vid&q=the+sopranos 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?
- readme 14y ago
  Going after Google wouldn't work because they actually have a legal department. These baseless charges are always brought against legally weak young people and the intent is fear mongering. This kind of stuff has been going on for too long.
- CJefferson 14y ago
  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 he did is particularly similar to Google's video search.
  - junto 14y ago
    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%2Fthepiratebay.se%2Ftorrent%2F7385617%2FThe.Iron.Lady.2011.NORSUB.AC3.DVDRip.XviD-Svennen1234 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?
    - chrischen 14y ago
      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.
molmalo 14y ago
This could set a major precedent, and MUST be stopped. People of UK, please do everything you can to stop this. Call your MP's, send them mails, make noise, something! "People who have committed serious offences such as murder, rape, other sex crimes and fraud, have been successfully extradited to the UK and convicted." That is just crazy, comparing the allegations of copyright infringement, with murder and rape? Are we in in that society already? So what's next? UK asking to extradite Sergey and Larry for the same allegations? Crazy.
nicholassmith 14y ago
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 wallets say so is sickening.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  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?
  - Jacqued 14y ago
    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 concerning their citizens...
    - arethuza 14y ago
      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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Bars_to_extradition
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    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.
- 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mixmax 14y ago
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.
- aes256 14y ago
  > 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.
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    > A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law Then he should be tried in the UK.
    - aes256 14y ago
      > 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...
chrischen 14y ago
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.
- henrikeh 14y ago
  > 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?
damian2000 14y ago
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.
slavak 14y ago
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.
- sp332 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's a crime in both the US and the UK.
- jahewson 14y ago
  It has to be a crime in both countries to be extradited.
yitchelle 14y ago
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?
- minikomi 14y ago
  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?
- rplnt 14y ago
  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).
  - Joakal 14y ago
    Yes, copyrighted content that the copyright owners had hosted. Now they can't access it. Your point is?
- jahewson 14y ago
  The difference is that Bing and Google follow the DMCA, so although they may commit the same "crime" under international law they are effectively pardoned by the US.
RivieraKid 14y ago
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.
spitx 14y ago
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.
- icebraining 14y ago
  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"?
  - spitx 14y ago
    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 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.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      I never meant to assail his intentions in this case. Then what did you meant to do by posting that? 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. And on what do you base that assertion? 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. I do not know Wales and I certainly cannot say whether he would or he wouldn't. But I do not see the purpose in posting such speculative "suggestions" except for smearing him.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
epo 14y ago
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.
- jahewson 14y ago
  Politicians sometimes respond to petitions. Starving children never do.
- Joakal 14y ago
  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.
planetguy 14y ago
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"?
- Joakal 14y ago
  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?
  - planetguy 14y ago
    > 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.
option_greek 14y ago
Now that they are extraditing British citizens to US for crimes committed on British soil, I hope they would finally stop shadow boxing and declare UK as copyright colony of US and let British citizens vote in upcoming US elections.
J3L2404 14y ago
I have to say I have noticed a trend with these type of articles. They skyrocket to the top at first, but when valid arguments come up, they are flagged into oblivion. I assume this is done by the same people that upvoted it in the first place.

181 points by sparknlaunch 14y ago

Interview with Richard O'Dwyer here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155627 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155627

rytis 14y ago

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...

cjrp 14y ago
When I wrote to my MP (who simply forwarded the letter on to the Home Office), I got the same response.
knotty66 14y ago
"fair and balanced extradition arrangements with the US" I'm sorry, what? These extradition arrangements are completely lopsided and need to be reformed.
jahewson 14y ago
Of course that's fine until the other country starts repackaging all crimes as "serious", which is arguably what's happening here - copyright after all, is usually civil and not criminal until huge scale is reached (and actually involves handling copyrighted material).

jiggy2011 14y ago

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 one because he might have to wait a couple of hours? WTF? If you are arrested by the police and possibly being charged with an imprison-able offence (or really any offence) of course you should get a solicitor , why would this even be a question?

Evernoob 14y ago
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.
- gouranga 14y ago
  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 with "no comment".
  - mike_esspe 14y ago
    Relevant talk for those, who thinks it can be a good idea to talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      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 Equivalent: "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" Having said that, I would personally keep quiet until you at least have a solicitor.
      - gouranga 14y ago

junto 14y ago

So he built a crowd-sourced version of Google's video search? https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbm=vid&q=the+sopranos 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?

readme 14y ago
Going after Google wouldn't work because they actually have a legal department. These baseless charges are always brought against legally weak young people and the intent is fear mongering. This kind of stuff has been going on for too long.
CJefferson 14y ago
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 he did is particularly similar to Google's video search.
- junto 14y ago
  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%2Fthepiratebay.se%2Ftorrent%2F7385617%2FThe.Iron.Lady.2011.NORSUB.AC3.DVDRip.XviD-Svennen1234 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?
  - chrischen 14y ago
    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.

molmalo 14y ago

This could set a major precedent, and MUST be stopped. People of UK, please do everything you can to stop this. Call your MP's, send them mails, make noise, something! "People who have committed serious offences such as murder, rape, other sex crimes and fraud, have been successfully extradited to the UK and convicted." That is just crazy, comparing the allegations of copyright infringement, with murder and rape? Are we in in that society already? So what's next? UK asking to extradite Sergey and Larry for the same allegations? Crazy.

nicholassmith 14y ago

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 wallets say so is sickening.

jiggy2011 14y ago
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?
- Jacqued 14y ago
  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 concerning their citizens...
  - arethuza 14y ago
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Bars_to_extradition
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  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.
14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mixmax 14y ago

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.

aes256 14y ago
> 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.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  > A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also constitute an offence under UK law Then he should be tried in the UK.
  - aes256 14y ago
    > 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...

chrischen 14y ago

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.

henrikeh 14y ago
> 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?

damian2000 14y ago

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.

slavak 14y ago

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.

sp332 14y ago
I'm pretty sure it's a crime in both the US and the UK.
jahewson 14y ago
It has to be a crime in both countries to be extradited.

yitchelle 14y ago

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?

minikomi 14y ago
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?
rplnt 14y ago
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).
- Joakal 14y ago
  Yes, copyrighted content that the copyright owners had hosted. Now they can't access it. Your point is?
jahewson 14y ago
The difference is that Bing and Google follow the DMCA, so although they may commit the same "crime" under international law they are effectively pardoned by the US.

RivieraKid 14y ago

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.

spitx 14y ago

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.

icebraining 14y ago
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"?
- spitx 14y ago
  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 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.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I never meant to assail his intentions in this case. Then what did you meant to do by posting that? 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. And on what do you base that assertion? 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. I do not know Wales and I certainly cannot say whether he would or he wouldn't. But I do not see the purpose in posting such speculative "suggestions" except for smearing him.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

epo 14y ago

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.

jahewson 14y ago
Politicians sometimes respond to petitions. Starving children never do.
Joakal 14y ago
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.

planetguy 14y ago

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"?

Joakal 14y ago
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?
- planetguy 14y ago
  > 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.

option_greek 14y ago

Now that they are extraditing British citizens to US for crimes committed on British soil, I hope they would finally stop shadow boxing and declare UK as copyright colony of US and let British citizens vote in upcoming US elections.

J3L2404 14y ago

I have to say I have noticed a trend with these type of articles. They skyrocket to the top at first, but when valid arguments come up, they are flagged into oblivion. I assume this is done by the same people that upvoted it in the first place.