Comment by mootothemax | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mootothemax | Hacker News Reader

Look, this isn't about some noble soul trying to better the internet for the sake of others; it's about someone who set up a commercial concern (bringing in c. 15,000 GBP/month), promoted the most popular pirated movies on its homepage, told users how to bypass a hosting site's own monetization strategies and not to complain about them as it's cheaper than going to the cinema, and after the first domain seizure, immediately set up another with a "Fuck Tha Police" video on its homepage.

For some reason, people in IT often seem to think the law doesn't apply to you if you act within sly nod nod, wink wink guidelines. As O'Dwyer's learning to his cost, that's not the case.

Primary source, but there are plenty out there:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-los...

FAQ number 7 is outrageous: http://web.archive.org/web/20090622020415/http://community.t...

EDIT: What UK law did he break? I'm very much not a lawyer, but believe it to be Section 107, 2A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents act 1988:

A person commits an offence who—

(a)makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work, or

(b)has such an article in his possession,

knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies for sale or hire or for use in the course of a business

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107

I don't think anyone is saying what the kid did was moral, or that he didn't do anything wrong.

The point is though,

1) He didn't commit a crime in the UK. There was no law forbidding him to do these things. Rightly so? Maybe not. Does it matter? I wouldn't say so. People should get in trouble based on laws, and laws only. It's about the principle, if people can get in trouble for not breaking any laws, but you know, he's a bad dude and all, then there is a serious problem with the legal system.

2) He did this whilst in the UK, and is being extradited to the US. I read that most of the site's visitors weren't even american, I'm not sure about the accuracy of that but I don't think it matters. You shouldn't be extradited cause you did something that's illegal in another country. Are we going to start extraditing people to iran for blasphemy as well?

I thought that the CPS said he could have been prosecuted in the UK, but that they weren't interested in doing it (I might be wrong on that).

He didn't commit a crime in the UK. There was no law forbidding him to do these things

I've updated my comment to reflect the law that he's alleged to be tried under. I don't know how the extradition agreements work though - maybe the UK have signed away their rights to prosecute someone as soon as the USA steps in? Wouldn't be surprised at any rate.

Are we going to start extraditing people to iran for blasphemy as well?

Extradition requires "double criminality", i.e. that something is a crime in both countries. Blasphemy against Christianity (or maybe just the Church of England) was a crime in the England and Wales until 2008. I'm not sure but Iran's blasphemy law might only apply to Islam. So there's never really been the same crime.

Additionally, signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights forbid extradition to a country for a crime which has the death penalty.

What he did or didn't do is immaterial. Our sovereign government has decided not to prosecute him. A foreign power is unilaterally using their economic and military might to make our government hand over his person. That is Wrong™ and it would be so regardless of his alleged crimes.

Our sovereign government has decided not to prosecute him.

They did, however, agree to their extradition agreements with the USA. But this is neither here nor there; I'm more concerned with the "he did nothing wrong" angle that is being used in argument against his extradition, whilst very ignoring the facts of the matter.

Linking to possibly infringing content on the web isn't exactly crime of the century though.

The extradition laws are being massively abused.

> A foreign power is unilaterally using their economic and military might to make our government hand over his person

How so? What's the possible endgame if the UK were to very publicly say no?

Will the US go to war with the UK? Will they embargo the nation? Will they cease trade?

Or will they perhaps throw up a diplomatic hissy fit about 'cooling relations' and then go back to business as usual.

"For some reason, people in IT often seem to think the law doesn't apply to you if you act within sly nod nod, wink wink guidelines."

Which UK law would that be? As I understand it, that's the contentious issue. That he didn't break the law.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought linking to movies instead of hosting them is legal?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought linking to movies instead of hosting them is legal?

I think that very much depends on which country you're operating in and what the purpose behind the linking is ;)

I agree that he doesn't appear innocent. However, I think extradition is too heavy-handed. He should be tried in his own country.

I understand (from your own source article) that people who very much are lawyers disagree that providing a link is a crime, and that the only UK prosecution of such did not provide a decision either way.

I understand (from your own source article) that people who very much are lawyers disagree that providing a link is a crime

I would very much hope that my defense lawyers would say the same ;)

and that the only UK prosecution of such did not provide a decision either way.

Which doesn't really help us either way in this case. I think that a ruling needs to be made one way or the other - somehow, some way - just to clear up stuff like this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com