Jimmy Wales Campaigns To Stop The Despicable Attempt To Extradite & Try Richard O 'Dwyer
from the speak-up dept
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is speaking out against the attempt to extradite Richard O'Dwyer from the UK to the US. As we've been detailing over the past year, O'Dwyer ran a site called TVShack.net, that was a search engine for TV shows. It pointed people to the results, some of which were authorized -- and some of which were infringing. But, of course, a search engine should not reasonably be blamed for the results in points to. In fact, the admin of an extremely similar site in the UK, TV-Links, had faced criminal charges in the UK, but was found not guilty, because just linking to infringing content is not a crime. And yet... the US has pushed really hard to extradite O'Dwyer, and tragically, the UK has approved this charade.Wales recently met with O'Dwyer and learned the details of the story, and was quite reasonably horrified:
Wales has set up an online petition addressed to the UK government seeking to stop the extradition of O'Dwyer. Who knows if it will actually have any impact, but getting more people to speak out about this ridiculous overreach by ICE and the Justice Department would be a good thing.Given the thin case against him, it is an outrage that he is being extradited to the US to face felony charges. No US citizen has ever been brought to the UK for alleged criminal activity on US soil. There is a disparity here that ought to raise concerns at the highest levels of government in both the US and UK.
From the beginning of the internet, we have seen a struggle between the interests of the "content industry" and the general public. Due to heavy lobbying and much money lavished on politicians, until very recently the content industry has won every battle. Internet users handed the industry its first major defeat earlier this year with the epic Sopa-Pipa protests over planned copyright laws that culminated in a widespread internet blackout and 10 million people contacting the US Congress to voice their opposition.
O'Dwyer is the human face of that battle, and if he's extradited and convicted, he will bear the human cost.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, extradition, ice, jimmy wales, richard o'dwyer, tv links, tvshack, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a shame on every corrupt sub-human involved and the institutions they've created or subverted for their interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad and dangerous precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad and dangerous precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad and dangerous precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad and dangerous precedent
Wait...that's the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad and dangerous precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad and dangerous precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad and dangerous precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad and dangerous precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Keep pretending it's only about "plastic discs" and not content.
They run scared of Hollywood because people aren't using Google to pirate crappy non-studio content.
btw, Wales defending a criminal is a new low for him, and that's saying a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not "a criminal". O'Dwyer has not been found guilty of anything as far as I know.
But hey, since we are just slinging around unfounded derogatory terms at people now, here's one for you:
You are as thick as manure and only half as useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Richard O'Dwyer is not a criminal, that's the point. I can do anything I like as long as I don't break the laws where I am at, and he should be able to as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, that's right, nowhere.
So how would you like it if we extradited you to the UK because you didn't tip your hat to the Queen? (yes, that's actually a thing - a very old one, but a law on the book nonetheless).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All this drama over make believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, you're a criminal.
...See? Just calling someone a criminal doesn't make it true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Die Criminals, Die!
You corporate criminals, criminal politicians and your criminal minions have escalated it to a fight to the death. The people will bring about a speedy end to your dangerous, cancerous existence.
You will all die imminently, painfully and miserably, burn in hell for eternity and your names will live in infamy forever.
The People promise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So man up, grow a pair and tell your wayward cousins across the pond to piss off. AND DON'T SEND YOUR OWN CITIZENS to some jerkwater country that has to outsource its own penal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's one thing for a country to protect a quiet asylum seeker who comes to a new country and tries to fit in. It's another when the person is meddling across borders.
A sovereign is going to smooth things over with a neighbor just like a real human. And that may mean handing over jerks to the other country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you see how stupid that actually sounds?
Oh wait, of course you don't, you're bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which, of course, the US is going to raise a fuss and make ridiculous double standards over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and in a related development the moon landings were faked but there is a base there staffed by escaped Nazis who are planning to return and conquer the world.
Whatever you're smoking, Bob, I think you would be better of selling it than trying to make a living as an artist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theresa May.... How much will you get for Richard ?
"Quit while you are ahead" must not be in their vocabulary.
As for the "useful idiot",Theresa May...
She needs start serving the people.
The police hate her (from a right wing paper..ouchhh) , the public hate her and I am sure the security services also hate her, for trying to outsource and privatize fucking everything that has taken years and skill to build.
"Serve the people" must be a really hard concept to grasp.
money is easier to grasp....amirite
Theresa May's ACTIONS suggest that money is more important than people and peoples security.
She will sell Richard O'Dwyer in a heartbeat.
The CORPORATE POLICE she is inventing. Another fine example of fascist ideology.
The spying she supports... it's about getting rid of the security services and employing contractors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They also don't have a case
Now, as far as I understand the current precedents, this isn't even illegal in the United States. We've seen it established over and over again that linking to infringing content is not, in itself, infringement. If I Google for an infringing movie download, and find it, Google isn't liable. If I find a link to infringing content on a blog, the blog owner isn't liable (unless they also uploaded the content at the other end of the link).
Don't get me wrong, I think that this whole extradition thing is a travesty of justice. But even if the DOJ somehow manages to extradite O'Dwyer, and bring him to trial in the US for somehow violating US law...the case is going to be a huge embarrassment for the government, and they're almost certainly going to lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They also don't have a case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They also don't have a case
I agree they have a plan - but I doubt it involves the kind of evidence you talk about. I think it runs along the lines of "terrify him into a plea bargain and never need to go to trial".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They also don't have a case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason people think you've sided with the pirates and not the artists is because of stuff like this. You're defending this pirate. You're critical of everything that's being done to him. But you don't care at all about his victims. You don't care about justice for them.
Day in and day out, you choose the pirates over the artists. The O'Dwyer case is just one example out of many of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're doing what Mike does: Defend this guy, with no concern shown for the victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The fact that a warrant was obtained is as meaningful as a warrant being obtained against an enemy of the government in Russia. I trust US convictions as much as I trust convictions passed by the courts of Zimbawbe against enemies of Mugabe.
Once the government is corrupt, institutions such as the courts cannot be taken on trust anymore. Maybe the officials involved in a particular case are clean, just as a court hearing a case in Russia or Zimbawbe might be clean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WTF? This guy ran a search engine and has never once been shown to be a "pirate". So, the truth is that people think Mike sides with pirates is because you and people like you don't have the modicum of intelligence required to read an article properly before commenting and simply label someone as a pirate if this site has anything nice to say about them.
Enjoy your wonderful, albeit ignorant, day....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nonetheless, Mike ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS sides with the pirates. O'Dwyer is but one example. I'm just pointing out the obvious. I know some of his hardcore fans, like yourself, don't see it. But everyone else does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but your rabid "he's a pirate" and "you're all apologists" message is seriously falling on deaf ears til you realize, that contrary to the opinion of some, the rest of the countries on the planet DO NOT fall under U.S. jurisdiction and rule.
Also, Mike never sides with the pirates, but he does question the actions of those going after them. Stretching, abusing and changing laws to go after someone who you cannot with any definitive certainty say has committed a crime, much less caused actual damages, is a bit much and is a perfectly reasonable thing to ponder and voice concerns over.
In point of fact, Mike has on numerous occasions said that piracy is wrong, it is illegal and he DOES NOT condone it. However, he says that fighting it tooth and nail while not offering more legitimate alternatives and actually listening to what people want is most definitely not going to fix the problem. Especially not when done in conjunctions with things such as this, extraditing someone from their home country for something that isn't illegal there and trying to hold them responsible for the actions of others. That's basically saying, "Fuck you. We are the U.S. and our corporations have free reign to do as they please and we will do what is necessary to let them have their way on their behalf." It only enrages people and makes them further want to flaunt and mock copyright laws, it does not make them want to respect them.
So you see, such actions are more harmful in the long run. But it takes a reasonable mind to see that. Of course, if one doesn't have a reasonable mind, then "you're all pirates and criminals and we're going to get you" will be your fall back response and you'll applaud such actions, as trivial, wasteful and harmful as they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS side with those who care for no one other than themselves at the expense of all others. Surely you meant to say alleged pirates too, yes? /s
If I see evidence of wrong doing and abuse of power on the part of my government and law enforcement, you can be damn sure I'm going to support whomever is at the receiving end of such grievously damaging accusations and try to do everything I can to stop it. Mike does the same in his own way and I salute him for taking a stand in a world where most are too lazy to bother.
Thank God corporate apologists like you are a tiny minority and have your hands tied by the laws of the land as well, otherwise we'd find ourselves living in a world where people are black bagged on a whim with no charges and no trial, there one day and gone forever the next.
The kind of world you irrationally promote through your constant disdain, sarcasm, and lies is one where tyrants rule with an iron fist, where everything in black and white and where you alone decide which is which with no regard to the damage it will cause to the collective whole. You claim to care about artists, but looking at you history it's clear that this is purely a lie, used to further your own personal agenda.
You, who would welcome a world where people have no rights and no means to fight back against injustice, are an enemy to liberty, true democracy, and the will of the people. I pray to God every day that people like you never ever get their hands on even the tiniest modicum of real power, you who would love nothing more than for all of us to live in a dictatorial world where the needs of the few always outweigh the needs of the many.
Your greed, selfishness, hatred, and desire for absolute power and control is as clear to us as the nose on your face. You support all the worst aspects of fascism and tyranny and EVERYONE knows it! So employ all the ad hominem attacks and illogical straw men you want, we will still see right through you because you are as transparent to us as glass and always will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed. How do you *know* that evidence was presented, and it wasn't just the DOJ claiming that he broke the law?
You know, because the DOJ would never claim something that wasn't true, right? *cough*Dajaz1*cough*
Do you have any actual arguments, or are you just going to go with appeals to authority and straw men?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No it wasn't!
The UK signed a very one sided extradition treaty with the US a few years ago and now there is no requirement to present any actual evidence.
Somnehow our foolish government believed that the US could be trusted not to abuse the treaty. It turns out that they were wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the government of the UK entered into a "bad" agreement in the hope and expectation that its provisions wouldn't be enforced? Seriously, that's your argument?
Unlike you, your government's negotiators didn't just fall off the turnip truck as it drove through the village. They got somethingin return. Now they are paying for whatever they got. Too bad for the kid. He knew full well what he was doing was illegal and unfortunately for him, he was stupid enough to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sometimes it really sucks to be right and I for one am sick of being told hindsight is everything from fools who lack foresight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So much for warrants proving much of anything about anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No it's not. It's a perfect example of over-enforcing intellectual property rights at the expense of basic human rights.
I really have no problem with intelluctual property rights being enforced. Go for it, have fun, waste your time and money. No sweat off my back.
It's when that enforcement collides with my rights to anonymity, free speech and due process or when you attempt to use my hard earned tax dollars to do so that I have a problem. And I will fight you tooth and nail to protect that which I hold dearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pirate MIKEY!!@! ARHGHRHGHR!!!
Really - you should get that obsession checked out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Umm. No he didn't. Read about the case. He was doing something found to be completely legal in his own country.
Busting this punk hasn't violated his rights.
Yes it has.
The reason he's being extradited is because he violated other people's rights.
No he didn't. That's the whole point. What he was doing was found to be legal. Perhaps the users of his site violated other people's rights. If that is the case then place blame where it belongs - on the users, not the tool.
Unless you think we should outlaw all guitars because some have been used as weapons in aggravated assault cases, your argument makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I love how everyone wants to defend his human rights. My copyrights are rights too and so let's hear some cheers for the US government defending those rights.
Oh wait. The cheap couch potatoes around here can't bring themselves to spend a few lousy bucks for iTunes or a Netflix subscription. So you'll wrap yourself in the flag of "human rights" so you don't have to admit that you're just a cheap jerk who won't pull his/her own weight.
Let me tell you something bucko: people like Martin Luther King and Peter Zenger fought for human rights. It's wrong to lump together their fight with the cheap bums who can't spend 99 cents for a song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup - you lack the good grace to apologise for all the errors and misguided insults you've perpetrated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Human rights trump copy"rights" hands down, every time, no matter how much you may wish the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Broke the law of a foriegn country - whose laws he could not reasonably be expected to know.
How many times have you broken Saudi law? Do you even know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Otherwise, you would know that O'Dwyer has yet to be convicted of any crime, thus he is not a criminal, much less a pirate. He merely ran a site. A site where other people, meaning NOT HIM, were posting links to material. It's also worth noting, that no such material was hosted on his site. And in point of fact, his site is perfectly legal within the bounds of the law in the U.K. Which is where he lives and where he operated about his site.
The reason people like Mike and myself and others here are critical of what's being done to him is simple. A citizen of another country is being extradited to the United States for something that is legal in his own country, and despite the fact that he has never once committed a crime in the United States, much less soot foot here.
Can you show us his victims? Because he has none. However, there may be some but they weren't victims of any actions on his part but of the actions of users of his site, which is a big difference. Again, it's trying to hold one responsible for the actions of others, and that is a serious problem for people with half a brain.
Also, if Mike chooses "the pirates over the artists" day in and day out, could you explain why he routinely celebrates and praises the actions of artists like Nina Paley, Louis C.K., Dan Bull, Amanda Palmer and many of others (some of whom are much bigger and popular than others)? Because if Mike was truly against artists as yourself and a few other Cowards claim he is, he would NEVER even mention such success stories. Nor would he offer suggestions and ideas on how artists can find more means of creating revenue streams utilizing advancements in technology and the internet in general.
Seriously, stfu or present evidence to support your wild allegations which are as far from true as you can get. Because if you want, I think you'll find people on this site for the most part will enthusiastically back up any claims they make (with evidence and proof of an independent nature) just to put you and your BS in it's place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because they aren't "real" artists or something like that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I know you don't mean that. But I forgot that's the reasoning the shills/trolls use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've read everything I could get my hands on.
Otherwise, you would know that O'Dwyer has yet to be convicted of any crime, thus he is not a criminal, much less a pirate. He merely ran a site. A site where other people, meaning NOT HIM, were posting links to material. It's also worth noting, that no such material was hosted on his site. And in point of fact, his site is perfectly legal within the bounds of the law in the U.K. Which is where he lives and where he operated about his site.
Nope. The judge in the UK ruled that what he did could be a crime there. Are you sure you're familiar with the case? Besides, he's being accused of violating US law.
The reason people like Mike and myself and others here are critical of what's being done to him is simple. A citizen of another country is being extradited to the United States for something that is legal in his own country, and despite the fact that he has never once committed a crime in the United States, much less soot foot here.
Again, the judge ruled that what he did could be a crime in the UK, so you don't have the proper facts. Where he was when he committed the crime doesn't really matter. A person can violate US law and be answerable in a court of law in the US even if that person is in another country.
Can you show us his victims? Because he has none. However, there may be some but they weren't victims of any actions on his part but of the actions of users of his site, which is a big difference. Again, it's trying to hold one responsible for the actions of others, and that is a serious problem for people with half a brain.
Um, the copyright holders are the victims. I know that's hard for a pirate-defender such as yourself to grok. He's being punished for his own actions.
Also, if Mike chooses "the pirates over the artists" day in and day out, could you explain why he routinely celebrates and praises the actions of artists like Nina Paley, Louis C.K., Dan Bull, Amanda Palmer and many of others (some of whom are much bigger and popular than others)? Because if Mike was truly against artists as yourself and a few other Cowards claim he is, he would NEVER even mention such success stories. Nor would he offer suggestions and ideas on how artists can find more means of creating revenue streams utilizing advancements in technology and the internet in general.
It's the FACT that he hates copyright so much, and that he hates anyone who has or enforces their copyright rights. If he truly cared about artists, he wouldn't begrudge them having and/or enforcing their rights. Instead, Mike ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS defends the pirates whenever there's an infringement case.
Seriously, stfu or present evidence to support your wild allegations which are as far from true as you can get. Because if you want, I think you'll find people on this site for the most part will enthusiastically back up any claims they make (with evidence and proof of an independent nature) just to put you and your BS in it's place.
What are you, like 10 or 12? I know 12 year olds are Mike's target audience. Nothing else could explain the childish nonsense he publishes with scary, OCD-like drive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adapt .... or copyright will destroy itself
"Don't be a heretic, don't question copyright", etc.... bitch please
Copyright, not the "breach of it" is the problem.
PROBLEM ?
Send your complaint via the internet(aka..P2P network) to...
Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling
1 wantToSell WorthlessCopies Road
County PoorPeopleDontDeserveCopies East
Southern GreedyBastard-istan (SG)
URA-CUN7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The judge stated that he did not commit a crime. Why is it that you keep glossing over this point when it's repeatedly made to you?
Except he wasn't in the US. You ever eat bacon? Hey, that's a crime in Sharia countries! Oh- but you were in the US when you did it? Doesn't matter! Your own logic states that you are a dangerous criminal that needs to be put to death!
So when some court in Wherethefuckistan wants to extradite you because you don't pray to Mecca four times a day, or because you worked on the Sabbath that's perfectly OK, right? If it's good enough for the US, it's good enough for everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heh. You probably better be careful what you say online then since you believe that you are answerable to another country's laws. Sharia Law is pretty harsh and Iran's justice system is no picnic either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is total rubbish. Applicable only if he actually committed the alleged crime in the country concerned, then fled. If he is a citizen in a country where his actions are NOT illegal (which is quite clear in this case), then he should not be answerable for some other country's half-baked idea of what IS illegal. As has been pointed out, probably most of the worlds population would end up being extradited if this was universally applied!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's becoming obvious that you don't know and just make shit up on the spot as you go along.
Techdirt's demographics from Quantcast:
45% age 35 or older (71% age 25 or older)
47% earn 50k or more (indicates professionals in their fields)
67% are college educated
Sorry, Techdirt's readers are not all pimply faced teenagers in Mom's basement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Excuse me? The entire world is under jurisdiction of the US now? Really? Please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You said you read it. You didn't say you understood it. Big difference.
It's the FACT that he hates copyright so much, and that he hates anyone who has or enforces their copyright rights. If he truly cared about artists, he wouldn't begrudge them having and/or enforcing their rights. Instead, Mike ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS defends the pirates whenever there's an infringement case.
And, so what? Thats your problem. His prerogative. You don't like what he writes, you don't have to come here. Its your choice. Sound like you are just upset because he doesn't come to your aid. Yet there are blogs out there on the other side of the issue, that are against the pirates and for the artists (you do know how to use google, don't you?) and they present the other side. So, whats the problem? You just don't like the it here? We got the message. We have our own opinions. We just don't like yours. That's our right, just as it is yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate is a word to describe good, kind sharing....PROBLEM ?
Since when are the two exclusive ?
That just void's your whole argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Show me an actual artist who supports the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer.
Even with your attitude to copyright infringement you should still oppose this extradition.
Surely if he has done something illegal he can be prosecuted in the UK. He has never set foot in the US in his life. How on earth can he be prosecuted in the US for doing something in the UK?
Even if he is "Guilty" of something it is only a cruel and heartless person like you seem to be who could demand that he be uprooted from his home and family and transported to a foriegn country and tried under a foreign law.
I wouldn't wish that onb my worst enemy. What kind of person are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And he should too. Let me him come to the US and prove that he's as innocent as all of the people around here claim. If he's really as innocent as everyone says, he should have little to fear. Then he can come and be a celebrity. Maybe Big Search will give him a job.
And let me clue you in to what happens to people who are "guilty", with or without quote marks. They get uprooted from their home and family and transported to jail, often in another state on the other side of the country. It happens to people who break all kinds of laws.
He made his choices. They gave him a chance to quit. He chose differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then you can't be an actual artist - thought not.
Let me him come to the US and prove that he's as innocent as all of the people around here claim.
OK - would you come to the UK and be tried under our notorious libel laws - you've said plenty that could trigger a case!
Since he has never set foot in the US there is no sane reason for him to stand trial there. If he has done something wrong in the UK he should be tried in the UK.
I find your assertion that US law should apply worldwide to be offensive in the extreme.
And let me clue you in to what happens to people who are "guilty", with or without quote marks. They get uprooted from their home and family and transported to jail, often in another state on the other side of the country. It happens to people who break all kinds of laws.
Two wrongs don't make a right - and "across the country" is very different to "to another country."
Look Bob - even the Dail Mail disagrees with you - you are really beyond the pale on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the rest of the world should recognize the jurisdiction of the U.S. ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More astroturfing from Big Search
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/brin-and-wojcicki-give-500000-to-charity-behind-wikiped ia/
Of course Big Search wants pirate sites to live because that means that more people will come to Big Search for content instead of going to iTunes or Amazon.
The question is how much of that $500k was shared with the editors doing all of the work at Wikipedia? Oh wait. I forgot. They're supposed to do all the work for free because it's cool. Sharing is only cool if the content companies are asked to share. It's not cool if Big Search or the Wikipedia is asked to share its revenues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
So Big Search is obviously a MAFIAA cover for stealing.
THEY'RE STEALING FROM EVERYONE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
But it's true, the only time I ever use Google is to find illegal downloads of music and movies. I can't imagine what anyone else would use it for. It's pretty obvious that piracy is Google's bread and butter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
'bob', n. 'Fucking idiot.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
Why should google pay "the content creators"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More astroturfing from Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Search for your braincells ?
As for the other anti-technology , anti-reality, anti-culture and anti-share comments of yours....
I had a really "Big Search",
I looked everywhere that I could think to look,
I even looked in the toilet,
but alas the "Big Search continues.....
I am still looking for a fuck to give !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citation needed!
As long as we keep granting them that basic premise, they have have every reason to take away our rights. There is absolutely nothing redeeming in the notion of intellectual property. It's nothing but legalized rent-seeking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems we're still in the 'Must pay lip service to copyright' era. Even Mike often introduces his articles with "Copyright was created not for the enrichment of publishers, as many assume, but for the benefit of the public." or something like that - on the basis Queen Anne and James Madison wouldn't have granted this privilege for any motive other than it was good for 'we the people'.
You have to talk to people like Karl Fogel or Rick Falkvinge in order to get opinions unadorned by 'copyright is a priori noble' lip service. Perhaps even Nina Paley too?
Folk need to understand the difference between rights (things they're born with) and privileges (rights annulled in the majority), so perhaps check out: http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=289
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure Pirate Mike
Clearly this is another example of your and Jimbo Wales's desire stop government from having any way to protect us; even through the enforcement of obviously good laws against some of the most egregious violations.
Those who made a choice to hack people's TVs deserve what they get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, content providers, think PR you !#$%!@
I don't care a lot about O'Dwyer. However, it appears a lot of your potential audience does. This is not in your best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, content providers, think PR you !#$%!@
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]