Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
huffingtonpost.co.uk
huffingtonpost.co.uk
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.
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.
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...
That's basically your argument.
"At this point it's more a case of challenging [...] the absurdity of extraditing a young man to be tried in a foreign court under a foreign jurisdiction for such an offence."
Discussing the law and its implications as it stands should not be taken for implicit support or approval, but it seems to be far too often around here.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Edit: I took out the obtuse bit, since mixmax said he didn't see it. (I can't reply to him yet).
Apologies to aes256 if I misread his comment.
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...
[See link below]
"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."
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...
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...
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.
Does anybody have any legal specifics here? I wonder if this is something that could happen to just random bittorrent users?
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...
NB It's not just France that has this policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Bars_to_extradition
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.
What sucks about this case is that it seems incredibly unlikely that linking constitutes a felony copyright infringement, because no copyrighted material is ever directly encountered. It seems much more likely that only a misdemeanor infringement occurred (if any), for which the UK does not extradite to the US.
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.
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...
Of course, if a crime is only half-committed in one country, then it is also only half-committed in the other country (presuming it is a crime in both). So either of the countries must be free to prosecute.
Have you allowed people to upload stuff to your website and didn't stop them enough? Well, it looks like you're liable for conspiracy for copyright infringement of something. A criminal penalty of $150k and 5 years jail per infringement.
Oh, it looks like you did it to several copyrights. That's a jailin'. Who cares if you haven't visited USA before! Like that ever stopped USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths
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.
However, the "Google do the same" argument doesn't fly, because Google follow the DMCA and so are exempt from being prosecuted for any copyright infringement from user-generated or crawled content.
PS - "harm" is a very general concept, so if I facilitate copyright infringement in the US from the UK, the "harm" occurs in the US, even though I'm in the UK.
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?
He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign country for a decade for posting links on the internet.
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".
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.
With respect to solicitors, get a private one as well (preferably one who knowingly hates the police) rather than a duty solicitor as they are in the pockets of the police in the UK. They are one and the same - they eat, drink, socialise and funny handshake in the same locations.
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 attention of the officer at the time of the arrest?".
Although I would imagine a rational jury would think that waiting for legal advice was a sensible thing to do.
Regards duty solicitors, I always thought that these were really private solicitors who were put on a rotation and were strictly kept separate from the police?
http://www.jfhlaw.co.uk/faqs/crime-faqs/what-is-a-duty-solic...
If there is a case of corruption here then that would be extremely worrying as the people most likely to be charged with crimes are also the people with the least ability to pay a private solicitor. Is there anything to back this up?
I'm also not sure I would want a solicitor who "hates" the police, I would want somebody motivated to help me, not get one over on someone else. The adversarial relationship between the police and solicitor should be professional and not personal.
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.
Is there a rule that says a criminal defence solicitor can never be in a social setting with a Police Officer?
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.
"I'll pepper spray you if you don't make a statement and say you were resisting arrest".
Make a fucking scene: "shout as loud as possible what the officer said". When there are a hundred eyes on you, they back off.
[1] I was going camping and had a hatchet inside my bag (not easily accessible) and was stopped and searched. It is definitely legal to carry such things as long as there is a purpose for it.
I was arrested when I was 14 (for something minor) and I wasn't dumb enough to refuse legal representation.
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 a new TVShack.cc domain, adding a picture of NWA and the statement "F* the police" to the top of the site.
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.
As such, and while this wouldn't take away from the stupidity of not getting a solicitor involved, maybe he asked the question not because he wanted an answer, but because he thought there was a chance the policeman might say "no, you don't need one of those" and create a problem for the prosecution?
They are allowed however to try and sway you away from the idea.
Even if he was trying such a trick , the fact is that he didn't request one.
His website has been in existence since 2007.
Napster had been shutdown years before and was still winding through the courts, for example, and The Pirate Bay was an (Internet) household name.
This particular kid may have been dumb (and immature given his flaunting), but to focus on his failings is ignore the greater phenomenon that he's merely fodder to. I certainly don't think he deserves to be put into the meat grinder, but if he had been a bit smarter and avoided it, we'd merely be talking about a different stupid kid.
The really unfortunate thing is that these halfway-there worse-is-better technologies like napster/torrent/bitcoin only serve to immunize the existing power structures by alerting them to the phenomenon of revolutionary communication technologies and giving the state incremental practice at blocking protocols.
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.
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?
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 it's the content creators fault?
It's no one's "fault" as there's nothing wrong with not having a movie/tv industry. Human attention and efforts would simply shift and focus on something else that may or may not be better than movies/tv. I could be on the other side of the universe, and having received a stray signal of copyrighted work and consumed it, it would not affect the original content creator one bit.
Again, the content creator simply shouldn't do it if it doesn't pay. Who told them to do whatever it was that they were doing in the first place? If there is no consumer compensation then why do it? Either find a way to get people to compensate you, or do something else.
Movies and tv, while a critical part of current American culture, isn't a necessity of life and is actually a relatively recent development. People who make movies/tv shows aren't entitled to their jobs and their way of making money just like how I'm not entitled to be able to make money by leaving freshly squeezed lemonade outside with a sign that says "pay for it pleeze" while I sit on my lazy ass in the living room watching tv. It's my fault for not figuring out a better way of monetizing my lemonade (if people steal it) even if it is technically illegal to steal that lemonade. Who says creative content has to be protected. The industry only came to being because it was technologically easy to protect copyright but that's clearly not the case anymore. The sad state of affairs now is for the industry to find a cheap way to protect their revenues, or abandon it. It's reality and there's nothing inherently wrong with not being able to monetize content by selling licenses to view it. There are many ways to monetize these things and copyright just happened to be the most convenient way for decades.
It would be illogical, perhaps unethical even, for me to want more of that content while not supporting it in any way. However there's a difference between paying simply because I consumed something and paying because I want more of something. If I consume something and do not wish any more content to be produced of that nature, then I should have the right to not support the content creator, as whether or not I pay for the content will have no repercussions on the content creator except as to enable him to continue producing. They are not entitled to take my money automatically just because of "consumption" unless it is defined by law (which I have explained can and should be changed). Not paying for content is the public's way of saying that they do not support content creators. Therefore content creators should just stop and do something else.
> 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)
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.
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"
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.
Good to know. Running a search engine can be compared to murder, rape, etc...
I'm sorry, what? These extradition arrangements are completely lopsided and need to be reformed.
"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.
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?
This kind of stuff has been going on for too long.
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.
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?
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.
Is this just a case of a bully picking on someone who has little hope of defending himself?
Also, how is this guy a "hacker"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unkempt and maladjusted hacker types are still social pariahs. People on HN whine about the necessary evils of hustling but fail to tie into issues like the one at hand the contiguous issues of essential fairness and even-handedness. Or else the Morins, Cashmores, Roses and the Systroms of this world will continue to rake it in while the grungy hacker genius will rot in seclusion.
Yes, often they (we? ¹) are.
But that doesn't mean it's OK to accuse Wales personally of something that is not only unfounded, but completely impossible to defend oneself against.
Do you want to make that argument? Sure - write a blog post making your case, show examples of people being discriminated against and submit it to HN.
But using people like that to promote your own arguments is not only detestable, as it makes you lose the respect of people who may agree with you otherwise. You certainly lost mine.
¹ I'm certainly a bearded, introvert and definitively unphotogenic geek, although I can't complain about being a pariah, except for the fact that my interests rarely aligned with others'.