

Wikipedia founder steps in to help UK hacker - sparknlaunch
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mobileweb/2012/06/24/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-richard-o-dwyer_n_1622705.html

======
mixmax
From the article it seems that this guy ran a search engine which might or
might nor be illegal in the United States. However, he is British, most of the
visitors are British and the servers are not in the United States, yet the US
wants him extradited and tried in an American court.

This of course begs the question: If an American is running a site hosted in
America with mostly American visitors how would the US react if a foreign
government wanted to extradite him and possibly put him in jail for many
years?

Probably not well.

~~~
aes256
_> From the article it seems that this guy ran a search engine which might or
might nor be illegal in the United States. However, he is British, most of the
visitors are British and the servers are not in the United States, yet the US
wants him extradited and tried in an American court._

The site was not a search engine.

It may have had a search function, but the links were added manually by
contributors (who O'Dwyer selected), and O'Dwyer exerted a great deal of
control over the content that was included on the site.

It was almost certainly illegal in the US (authorising copyright
infringement). A UK judge has also ruled the allegations, if true, would also
constitute an offence under UK law (O'Dwyer's editorial control over the site
prevented him from using a "mere conduit" defence) and thus approved the
extradition.

O'Dwyer is bang to rights as far as the law currently stands. At this point
it's more a case of challenging the absurdity of the law (simply linking to
infringing material being an offence) and the absurdity of extraditing a young
man to be tried in a foreign court under a foreign jurisdiction for such an
offence.

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

Then he should be tried in the UK.

~~~
aes256
_> 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...

~~~
mixmax
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.

~~~
reitzensteinm
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).

~~~
mixmax
maybe you're right - I didn't catch that.

Apologies to aes256 if I misread his comment.

------
nicholassmith
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.

~~~
jahewson
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.

~~~
nicholassmith
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.

~~~
jahewson
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.

------
jiggy2011
This is shocking and as a UK citizen angers me greatly, however I have to say
this guy doesn't seem too smart.

Firstly, building a website (presumably with the domain registered under his
name) like this in the current legal climate is basically asking for trouble.
Especially hosting it in Sweden (where the TBP was).

Secondly , in the interview he _asked_ the Police if he should get a
solicitor, and decided not to get one because he might have to wait a couple
of hours? WTF?

If you are arrested by the police and possibly being charged with an imprison-
able offence (or really any offence) _of course_ you should get a solicitor ,
why would this even be a question?

~~~
Evernoob
Because he was a scared kid who wanted this to go away, and the police told
him it would if he just answer their questions and not wait the "2 hours" for
the lawyer.

He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign
country for a decade for posting links on the internet.

~~~
gouranga
Agreed, but this is standard tactics for the police.

The police (particularly the met) are out to get an easy prosecution and
fulfill their statistical requirements rather than fair and honest justice.
They will pretend to be your friend and offer you an easy way out that doesn't
exist to do this.

The best thing you can do is say nothing at all. Shut your gob and refuse to
say a word. Everything should be replied to with "no comment".

~~~
mike_esspe
Relevant talk for those, who thinks it can be a good idea to talk to police:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc>

~~~
jiggy2011
I am not a lawyer, but it's worth noting that in the UK we don't have a 5th
amendment. So I believe in some circumstances it can reflect badly on you if
you refuse to answer questions from the Police especially where you could have
provided information that would have been in your favour.

For example, part of standard USA Miranda:

 _"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."_

British Equivalent:

 _"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not
mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court"_

Having said that, I would personally keep quiet until you at least have a
solicitor.

~~~
gouranga
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.

~~~
jiggy2011
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...](http://www.jfhlaw.co.uk/faqs/crime-faqs/what-is-a-duty-solicitor/)

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.

~~~
gouranga
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.

~~~
mryan
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?

~~~
jiggy2011
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?

~~~
Djehngo
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.

------
chrischen
This is particularly stupid because apparently the site only had _links_ to
copyright infringement.

This is just hollywood abusing their position to fight the advancement of tech
and society simply because it disagrees with their business.

I do not believe there is anything inherently unethical about copyright
infringement in pirating movies or tv shows. It's only technically illegal
(and unethical in the sense that it's against the law) because copyright
protections were put in artificially as a regulation to control for a certain
outcome, like tariffs, taxes, or a dam. Hollywood simply won't admit the dam
isn't working and trying to antagonize and criminalize those who go against
the flow directed by regulation.

Calling pirating movies or tv shows unethical is only justifiable if pirating
is akin to stealing in the physical sense, but it's not, and so it's not
unethical. If someone were to project a copyrighted movie on to a giant wall,
it's like saying all unauthorized onlookers are doing something unethical,
when really it doesn't matter how many illegal onlookers there are as it won't
affect the creator. If the content creator can't feed himself because everyone
is "stealing" his work then he should a) find a new line of work or b) find a
way to properly monetize it. Anything of value can be converted to money.

That being said I do think the content creators provide something valuable,
and this should be protected. The issue here is that it's only going to get
more expensive to enforce the current business models of content creators. The
expense not only comes in the form of cost to gov't and the businesses
themselves, but also in the form of DRM and other side effects of enforcement
that really degrades the whole product chain. In the worst case scenario we
never find a way to adequately support a film and tv industry. It's cultural
benefits will be missed but we'll just shift our attention to something else.
Life goes on. It's existence was probably arbitrary in the first place.
Copyright laws didn't enable the TV & film industry. Enforceability of those
laws did that, and the enforceability is eroding way whether they like it or
not.

Summary: It's unethical to break the law (assuming the law was instated
ethically), which, in theory, is a set of rules everyone agrees to play by.
However pirating movies and tv shows is not inherently unethical as it is just
an arbitrary law we put in place to control for an outcome. Linking to
copyright infringement should be neither of these.

~~~
henrikeh
> 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?

~~~
chrischen
> 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.

~~~
henrikeh
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)

~~~
chrischen
> (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.

------
rytis
_A Home Office spokesman said: "We have effective, fair and balanced
extradition arrangements with the US [...] People who have committed serious
offences such as murder, rape, other sex crimes and fraud [...]_

Good to know. Running a search engine can be compared to murder, rape, etc...

~~~
cjrp
When I wrote to my MP (who simply forwarded the letter on to the Home Office),
I got the same response.

------
molmalo
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.

------
slavak
The idea that you can be extradited to a country you don't live in for
something that isn't even a crime which was committed somewhere else is, as
they say, completely _fucked_.

~~~
sp332
I'm pretty sure it's a crime in both the US and the UK.

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

------
junto
So he built a crowd-sourced version of Google's video search?

[https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbm=vid&q=the+sopranos](https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbm=vid&q=the+sopranos)

Since I am secondary linking to copyrighted content via Google, does that make
the owners of this website liable to prosecution?

~~~
CJefferson
Your link doesn't seem to provide whole episodes, so might well fall under
fair use.

Also, the law understands intent. Google will take down links when requested.
This guy purposefully ignored take-down requests, and was clearly purposefully
organising his website to pirate copyrighted material.

Now, if he should be taken to the US is another question, but in my opinion
you shouldn't lower the debate by claiming what he did is particularly similar
to Google's video search.

~~~
junto
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...](https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fthepiratebay.se%2Ftorrent%2F7385617%2FThe.Iron.Lady.2011.NORSUB.AC3.DVDRip.XviD-
Svennen1234)

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?

~~~
jahewson
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.

------
epo
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.

~~~
Joakal
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.

------
RivieraKid
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.

------
yitchelle
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?

~~~
rplnt
Same for torrents and no one seems to care. On the other hand, I remember HN
readers protecting megaupload (which DID host the copyrighted content).

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

------
damian2000
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.

------
option_greek
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.

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

Also, how is this guy a "hacker"?

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

~~~
planetguy
_> 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.

------
J3L2404
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.

------
spitx
A not-so entirely tangential thought:

Would Jimmy Wales have taken up this cause if Richard O'Dwyer wasn't a put-
together specimen? You know if he was a socially-awkward, not-sure-of-himself,
social-grace-lacking and all around clumsy-looking hacker. If the answer to
this was manifestly in the affirmative, the question wouldn't be begging to be
asked.

This is a no-lose proposition for Jimmy. Whether the guy is actually
extradited or worse convicted, this low hanging PR fruit is already in Jimmy's
satchel.

This is not to cast a doubt on JW's intentions.

However, holding all details of the alleged crime constant, I bet he wouldn't
touch this case with a 10 foot pole if the guy didn't fit the archetype that
wouldn't soil JW's image.

~~~
icebraining
These accusations in the form of hypothesis are disgusting. Do you have _any_
evidence to believe Wales decided to help based on the guy's "social grace"?

~~~
spitx
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.

~~~
icebraining
_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.

~~~
spitx
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.

~~~
icebraining
_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'.

