Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker(huffingtonpost.co.uk)
huffingtonpost.co.uk
Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mobileweb/2012/06/24/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-richard-o-dwyer_n_1622705.html
19 comments
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Then he should be tried in the UK.
> 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...
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.
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...
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...
You missed the GP post (which was also his). He said:
"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).
"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).
maybe you're right - I didn't catch that.
Apologies to aes256 if I misread his comment.
Apologies to aes256 if I misread his comment.
No, the act has to be illegal in the UK too in order for the UK to extradite one of its citizens. e.g. you can't be extradited from the UK for insulting a Thai monarch.
The CPS has the discretion to prosecute a case if they deem it within the public interest, so how is this case not now within the public interest? Even if it is only to halt the extradition process.
That's actually an interesting suggestion. It would force the UK to take a position on the issue and if he's found not guilty, it would be very clear the UK and USA are at odds on the matter.
Which is the approach the French, Germans, Russians, Austrians, Chinese, Japanese etc. take.
[See link below]
[See link below]
> 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...
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...
> 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...
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...
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
"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
[deleted]
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
This is outrageous. I joined the Pirate Party to combat bullshit like this by making such crimes to be prosecuted in the home country. Especially because some countries have batshit insane penalties for IP.
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
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
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.
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.
I agree that the problem is that it looks unlikely that a serious crime occurred, and yet extradition has been requested.
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.
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.
>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.
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...
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...
Where does the government derive authority to govern interactions where only half take place inside their borders?
Easy: half of it took place within their borders. When you interact with other countries you do so on their terms, because they are sovereign.
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.
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.
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?
Does anybody have any legal specifics here? I wonder if this is something that could happen to just random bittorrent users?
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...
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...
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
NB It's not just France that has this policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Bars_to_extradition
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.
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?
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?
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.
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".
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".
Relevant talk for those, who thinks it can be a good idea to talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
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.
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.
That is when you are questioned, not when you are arrested. You can keep quiet as long as you want. Technically the simpler your questioning and therefore statement is, the more ambiguity is available in court which goes in your favor whether guilty or innocent. During cross examination, any error you make ruins your credibility. No information = less errors. Choosing not to answer a question does not imply guilt - it's in the CPS prosecution guidelines.
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.
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.
Choosing not to answer does not imply guilt, however simply stone walling with "no comment" is probably not as good an idea as it would be in the US (although a solicitor would be able to advise you on what you should answer).
I'm not sure whether "questioned" just means when you are at the police station or also during the time of the arrest. I would assume it could refer to both "why did you not bring this to the 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
Is there a rule that says a criminal defence solicitor can never be in a social setting with a Police Officer?
I think it presents a clear conflict of interests if a solicitor is representing a client who was arrested by a close friend of said solicitor.
The magistrate said that the CPS and police had made a mockery of the legal system and that he was striking the case off. CPS solicitor was reprimanded verbally. I was awarded costs of 300 pounds. Lasted about 5 mins after that.
If you're arrested in the UK, you'll be asked if you want a solicitor present. If you do, then you'll not be questioned until your solicitor arrives and gives you legal advice.
This isn't brought up in court, as it's basically inadmissible. That said, there are a couple of situations where you can be questioned without a lawyer present - a lovely side-product of our "anti-terror" legislation.
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.
For reference, having been on the end of it (at Waterloo Station [1]), the police also use another tactic regularly which sucks but is easily dealt with:
"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'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.
He was 24 so not exactly a "kid". In fact if you are scared a solicitor is probably the best thing you could have to alleviate some of the fear and uncertainty and give you an ally in such a situation.
I was arrested when I was 14 (for something minor) and I wasn't dumb enough to refuse legal representation.
I was arrested when I was 14 (for something minor) and I wasn't dumb enough to refuse legal representation.
> 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 a new TVShack.cc domain, adding a picture of NWA and the statement "F* the police" to the top of the site.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In a perfect world, people starting communities like this would be smarter about it and use better software that conceals their identity and provides no central server to shut down. But unfortunately the Internet gained prime-time popularity with barely-adequate centralized object naming and transport technology (dns/http). So there are masses of people who understand its promise, but don't scrutinize the popular implementation nor take technical precautions to shield themselves - they instead blunder in while concocting legal theories as to why they're safe (as they fail to realize that laws are less like code and more like advertising).
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 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.
> Firstly, building a website like this in the current legal climate is basically asking for trouble.
His website has been in existence since 2007.
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.
Napster had been shutdown years before and was still winding through the courts, for example, and The Pirate Bay was an (Internet) household name.
I'm completely guessing here, but isn't there some sort of law or regulation that the police are required to give you truthful information regarding your right to legal representation?
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?
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?
I'm not sure of the specifics of the law, but if you ask for a solicitor they are not allowed to refuse or tell you that you are not entitled to one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
> 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 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.
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.
I think I see your point better now.
> It would be illogical, perhaps unethical even, for me to want more of that content while not supporting it in any way.
So what do you suggest instead? Instead of paying upfront, should the content production instead by shifted towards pay-as-you-like services? Micro-donations?
How would you make sure people paid for the content? A lot of people don't have the moral standard today to pay for music or movies they like and want more of - they copy because they can and it's cheaper.
(Your lemonade analogy is ridiculous though. stealing=/=copying, artist distributing music on iTunes=/=leaving lemonade in the open)
> 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)
> (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 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 think he's suggesting simply foregoing anything that relies on "intellectual property", like movies, TV, books, studio music, software not as a service, and so on.
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.
>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"
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"
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.
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.
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...
Good to know. Running a search engine can be compared to murder, rape, etc...
When I wrote to my MP (who simply forwarded the letter on to the Home Office), I got the same response.
"fair and balanced extradition arrangements with the US"
I'm sorry, what? These extradition arrangements are completely lopsided and need to be reformed.
I'm sorry, what? These extradition arrangements are completely lopsided and need to be reformed.
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).
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.
"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.
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.
Interview with Richard O'Dwyer here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155627
So he built a crowd-sourced version of Google's video search?
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?
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?
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.
This kind of stuff has been going on for too long.
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.
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.
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%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?
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?
The DMCA gives you a get-out if you've committed a copyright infringement unknowingly via user-generated content. By serving that content you have already violated copyright under international law. But if you've been following the DMCA, then the US will (indeed they must) let you off.
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.
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.
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.
Politicians sometimes respond to petitions. Starving children never do.
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.
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?
Is this just a case of a bully picking on someone who has little hope of defending himself?
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?
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.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These accusations in the form of hypothesis are disgusting. Do you have any evidence to believe Wales decided to help based on the guy's "social grace"?
I never meant to assail his intentions in this case. However you can't refute the PR implications of what kind of candidate he throws his support behind.
As much as personalities like JW want to be associated with Net Neutrality initiatives and the like, they still have their apprehensions when it comes to associating themselves with the geek / hacker types.
Take this guy (picked totally at random from a YT search for Linux distro) in the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xeZaUyixvk
I am not entirely convinced if JW would have come out in his support if he were the culprit (keeping every other detail of the case untouched). Yes, I am suggesting that JW threw his weight in - atleast in some measure - due the seemingly well-adjusted looks of Richard O'Dwyer.
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 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.
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.
It's not a smear campaign.
It's the unspoken truth.
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.
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.
Unkempt and maladjusted hacker types are still social pariahs.
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'.
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'.
Possibly. After all there was a lot of popular support for Gary McKinnon and he actually has an autism-spectrum disorder and clinical depression.
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.