Slashdot Log In
World's First Warez Extradition Decided Soon
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Mar 14, 2004 09:24 AM
from the sucks-to-be-him dept.
from the sucks-to-be-him dept.
An anonymous reader writes "An Australian Court will soon determine whether US Law should reign supreme in copyright infringement cases that occur online. According to this article, a decision will be made in two weeks as to whether Hew Raymond Griffiths, also known as "Bandido", will be extradited from Australia to the US for running the warez group DOD. Slashdot has in the past interviewed one of Bandido's co-conspirators in the US, who was sentenced to hard time - but the question is, if Griffiths committed no crime in his home country, should the US be allowed to hijack .au laws? "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
How are you supposed to get anything done on the internet if you have to worry about not only the laws in your country, but those all over the world?
(Realistically, the laws in your country plus those in the US)
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Informative)
Wouldn't you like to find out what precedent is in fact set before deciding whether you like it? The decision hasn't been made yet.
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Joe Webmaster from Anytown, USA hosts a site critical of Islam, or Kim Jung-Il, Castro and are found in countries X, Y and Z to violate some law regarding incitement, or subversion -- wouldn't an extrapolation of a decision favorable for extradition mean that the US would need to send Joe Webmaster packing to Uzbekistan, North Korea or Cuba?
IMO, let the US and AU work on their treaties regarding the honoring of copyrights and let AU prosucute violators in-house.
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely this is the only way to fairly do this. I mean, why should the US be able to force its laws on other countries and other countries not be able to force their laws on the US? If the guy actually gets extradicted, then I think that anyone running an anti Kim Jung-Il website should be extradicted to North Korea. I fail to see any difference in the situation, unless you start to try and rationalise whose laws are better, or more moral, etc. which is a completely subjective argument. There is a common denominator in what is acceptable, and unless you violate international law or the law of the country you reside in, then you have done nothing wrong. Period.
Of course extradition to North Korea, China, etc. of a US national would never happen as there would be an uproar, but it would be no different to what is happening in this case. How on earth is Australia letting this happen? Where is the "Fuck you" from the Australian government? Do they have any balls at all?
What exactly is it that has the US thinking they can boss the entire world around without pissing some people off? The US people should start to shift part of the blame for the current terrorist situation to their own government and their foreign policy. A few years ago I was keen on moving to the US, but I am so sick and disgusted with the actions of the US, I don't think I want to be a part of it. Johnny Depp had the right idea.
If Australia decides that the current situation is indeed a loophole, then pass a law that prevents this guy continuing with copyright infringement.
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they do not. They are the biggest bunch of limp-dicked , US Govt. butt-licking nancies elected in recent memory.
Given that our Government is such a bunch of moronic arseholes, it is really up to the citizens to tell the US Govt. to fuck off, so here we go
MEMO:
=====
TO: The Administration, Congress and Senate of the United States of America
RE: Extradition of an Australian national on charges copyright infringement.
Dear Sirs/Madams,
Go fuck yourselves.
Yours sincerely,
The People of Australia (sovereign nation last time we checked)
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet if only governments asked for their nationals detained at Camp X-Ray to be returned, the US would put them on the next plane!
Joe Webmaster, or any other American citizen, will never, ever, not in a million years be extradited anywhere, no matter what they did.
Parent
No, its ok (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't protect our citizens held in Guantanomo because "We don't have the laws to prosecute them, and the Americans do" in the words of our foreign minister, Alexander Downer. To me, if there is no law against it, he was not doing something illegal. It may have been morally questionable, but not illegal, to attend a merc training camp in a foreign country. Not fighting for the 'other side', just being there.
We were aforefront member of the coalition of the willing, and..
grrr
Sorry, this stuff just makes me mad.
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Informative)
Extracted from the US to:
Ireland [archives.tcm.ie]
Hong Kong [info.gov.hk]
Yugoslavia [geocities.com]
I am by no means an expert on this, these are just some google results.
Parent
Then again.. (Score:4, Funny)
If it works, let's pass a law making spamming illegal, with harsh penalties, and then demand that everyone extradite thier spammers.
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government wants to keep their nationals, especially government officials, out of any courts no in their control. Of course private citizens and government leaders of other nations are fair game.
It doesn't look like precedent to me, it looks more like the US is doing it because they can.
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Informative)
"So in order to protect our citizens, we are in the process of negotiating bilateral agreements with the largest possible number of states, including non-Parties. These Article 98 agreements, as they are called, provide American citizens with essential protection against the Court's purported jurisdiction claims, and allow us to remain engaged internationally with our friends and allies. To date, 14 countries have signed Article 98 agreements with us."
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
But if US law took priority we'd be extraditing lots of Canadians to be tried in US courts for copyright infringment even though it's perfectly legal here in Canada...
Or something totaly different... it's legal to smoke pot here in Canada... if US law took priority then we'd be extradited to the US for enjoying a bud...
Different countries different laws... why should we be arrested and extradited for laws of other countries if we broke none in our own? (And have never stepped foot in the other country even) That would be like arresting all those downloading pr0n and extraditing them to Iran or something because it violates Islamic laws of decency...
Just my two cents...
Addbo
Parent
Wait a sec (Score:5, Funny)
Extradition (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Extradition (Score:5, Insightful)
Their lawyers are using simple SCO tactics like "our IP is in their product" they can say it but it does not make it true.
adult desktops & wallpapers [67.160.223.119]
Parent
Re:Extradition (Score:4, Insightful)
Those tactics are perfectly valid for defending someone in a criminal trial and a lawyer would be stupid not to do this.
In criminal trials the burden of proof is entirely on the side of the prosecutor. If he doesn't like your defense he is free to submit proof to the contrary.
Civil cases, however, both sides have the burdon of proof for the respective claims they make. A lawyer using these tactics in a civil case doesn't gain anything since it is himself who has to provide proof.
The fact that SCO uses these tactics shows that they don't care about the actual outcome of the case (they know they'll lose) but rather want to work with the effects this has outside of the case (e.G. media attention to drive their stock price).
Parent
Re:Extradition (Score:5, Insightful)
Q. Is that legal?
A. It is if you have nuclear weapons.
Now, he was talking about a different topic, but I think it's a good explanation for a lot that's going on in the world now. It certainly explains the US government current foreign policies.
Parent
And the FTA starts to bite (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems we wont be able to buy DVDs from the US soon to because of all this.
Not hijacking (Score:5, Insightful)
If you commit a crime in a foreign country which is also considered a crime in your home country you should be extradited. No question.
If you commit a criminal act in a foreign country which is legal in your home country, you probably shouldn't be extradited. At least not in this case, where the guy hasn't even set foot in the USA while perpetrating the alleged crime.
But: Software piracy is not legal in Australia.
So the question is: Does the US court have jurisdiction of these crimes, if they did occur in Australia?
That's a question which the US court will no doubt adress in the trial.
But if they don't, then it means that he should be tried in Australia..
So what's the issue?
Re:Not hijacking (Score:5, Insightful)
Better questions are:
I hope that it's looked at in Australian courts first.
Parent
Actually (Score:5, Informative)
And then it's up to the Australian judicial authority (judge/panel/court I don't know) to extradite, or not, based on what the extradition request and the arrest warrant ask for.
At least, that's how things should be working in theory.
The American Empire (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a precedent but it will never hold. (Score:5, Interesting)
That said the issues are subtley but still substantially different. Libel is a civil issue, facilitation of piracy is criminal. International treaties handle these cases differently (and quite often not at all), it would have not been possible to sue that jornelist if his paper had no dealings in Australia as if I remember correctly Australian defamation laws are not recognised by America because of the differnces in laws and to a lesser extend the differences in culture. Only the Australian arm of that company could be sued.
But even if the crime was ruled to have been commited in America, as is possible extradition may not be possible. This is because nomatter where a crime was commited, if a sovereign nation does not recognise those crimes or recognises them to a lesser extent (as is the case here) then deportation may be conditional or even impossible.
Personally I don't see a deportation happening, the backlash that would occur when an Australian is sent to a foreign land that he has never set foot on before, to stand before a foreign jury to answer to foreign crimes for an action that was alledged to occur in the man's own home, in his own country would be sickening to most Australians or anyone with a sence of national identity, even if they are not Australian. There is a strong undercurrent of hostility towards the US flowing around Australia's youth and left wing. No judge would be willing to make this man a martr to Australian nationalism. Australia is one of the only countrys never to have had any wars or bloody revolutions, nobody would risk making this sacrifice to appease a foreign power if it meant a remote possibilty that thousends of angry young people with a newfound nationalistic furver could be storming the high court, parlement house, the US embassy and pine gap.
One also has to consider that a legal system that would entitle a foreign power to snatch away citizens for breaking laws of another nation into a distant land where they have never been is harldy soverign. Even if he is not crushed by homocidal revolutionarys, any judge that allows this extradition will surely be relinquising his own power to those overseas. This is completely contrary to human nature, let alone the nature of one ambitious enough to become a high court justice.
But let me say this. If this extradition is allowed, whosoever allows this man has commited nothing wrong in his own country to be taken to a foreign land as a prisoner, shall have fire and chaos thown down on him or her by either their power being snatched away by the American judituary or their life being snatched away by hostile revolutionarys. If they act in the wrong way, their own actions shall not go unlamented.
at the risk of performing the political troll... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess this is to be expected from a government that will storm into a crippled-to-the-level-of-impotence Iraq to stop them from developing, err, "weapons of mass destruction", but will just cautiously sidestep any country of real WMD threat (China, NK, Israel).
Seems to be another case of break the weakling orpahan to keep the rest in line.
AMERICANS! Get your act together! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this really a "crime"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most extradition treaties deal with criminal offenses.
Other than the weird laws of the US (sorry, but thats my opinion), since when has "copyright infringement" been considered a criminal offense?
I guess we can expect the RIAA to extradite for downloading next?
National Sovereignty... (Score:5, Interesting)
The civil war in Columbia started as a question of National Sovereignty over the extradition (to the United States) of a cocaine producer, which was not against the law in Columbia at the time. This extradition led to the increasing popularity of the FARC, and their accompyaning (Stalinist) socialist platform, increased cocain production and exportation (to the United States) in order to finance both right wing and left wing paramilitaries, and increased hardships for the poorest of Columbias people, who were already suffering due to ecconomic hardships and a lack of basic civil rights for the majority of Columbias people.
Actions such as these cause increased mistrust of a nations government, lend credence to dangerous or misguided political movements, (rightfully) increases anti-American sentiment, leads to internal social conflict, and increase crime in the nation that would extradite for an offense that is not illegal in that country.
Given that Australia is not a third-world country, is not a narcotics exporting country, and has a stable and (I assume) fair form of government, it is unlikely that the repecussions will be as unsettling or as harmful as has occurred in Columbia.
Still, demanding extradition for an offense that is not illegal in the offenders country, and was not committed in the requesters country, does not serve a nations national interest, as it will weaken it's ability to (ethically and effectively) influence the other nations policies, creates mistrust among the citizens and governments of other nations, and makes traveling abroad more dangerous for the nations citizens due to misguided attacts against it's citizens.
I a company is doing business in a foreign land, then they must be willing to deal with the law (or lack of law) and culture as it exists there. If the company wishes to have that law changed, they should follow the tradition and procedure of that countrynot lobby their own government to have its law enforced on foreign soil.
If this man has broken Australian law, he should be prosecuted under Australian law, or if it is a civil offense there, the harmed American parties should sue in Australian courts.
The US pressing for extradition in this case may seem like a "win" to the companies who produced the software, but for everyone else, and for US relations with Australia, this could be a big loss in the long run.
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is. In Australia they have things called "trials" precisely for the purpose of debating such issues.
Parent
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Insightful)
This just underscores my prediction on how the internet will eventually lead to world government.
Parent
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Insightful)
Question with the sort of thing this case deals with is where the crime is actually committed. I think that as long as he hosted stuff on a server in Australia and he was in Australia, it does not matter which US copyrights he violated, he did not commit a crime in the US, so he shouldn't be extradited. How can he possibly break US law without being in the US or doing anything in the US?
If the server he is using is located in the US, then maybe things are different. But just because the object was from the US doesn't mean he's broken US laws...
Of course he can be prosecuted in Australia for breaking Australian law
Parent
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same thing. You can't allow laws from one country to affect citizens of another or the most restrictive laws from any one country would apply to all Netizens. That's not wise.
Parent
Re:Extradition from Australia (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, Australia does have extradition arrangements with the U.S. But was he in the U.S. when he did the crime? And if not, is that a valid defense? If he hacked into a bank, we would want him sent to face the charges. But, not all of us have hacked into banks, but all of us have pirated software or music, therefore we want to be leanient with his sentence.
Parent
Re:Extradition from Australia (Score:4, Insightful)
The facts are that these are computer crimes, and boundaries are somewhat gray when it comes to jurisdiction. If the guy was a virus writer, even if the virus was essentially harmless, we would be screaming at the top of our lungs for the chair. Spammers, same thing. The DOD warez group? They gave me all those cool games. They should get medals for fighting the Corporate Interests which are taking away my rights!
See, it's all in the perception of the law, not the letter of the law, and not the spirit. We can get outraged and call a law unjust, but we are not always objective. Pot Laws are a perfect example of this. We have large groups fighting for the right to smoke pot. Should we legalize it because a lot of people want to smoke up? Did the editors at high times give this a lot of thought, or do they just want to smoke pot?
Now, I'm all for legalizing it, but I want the same controls as alcohol. Give me a roadside test for it, that does not involve a blood test or urine test, and I'll be the the guy in the first row of the march on the capitol. Until then, simply legalizing it, even if half the population smokes, would be irresponsible. In North America, we do not have the public transportation infrastructure to give pot smokers options to travel, and we have no yardstick to measure when it's dangerous to drive under the influence.
That's enough ranting. In summary, Democracy is about being fair and responsible. Changing the laws to prevent people from becoming criminals will only lead to a land of no laws to infringe, denegrating into a cultural hedonism.
Parent
Re:Another morality question: (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, if you live in any country based on any European legal tradition, or anywhere else not ruled by paranoid dictators/warlords or that kind of shit. This is what lawmakers do: Find ways of stopping this 'but this is the letter-of-the-law'-style whining oxenscheisse. If you conspire to murder, and the deliberations take place in your own country, you own the murder to virtually the same degree as the hit man.
Parent
Re:No fucking chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No fucking chance (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Since when is "copyright infringement" criminal? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the subject, says it all!
Parent
Re:No fucking chance (Score:5, Insightful)
(A) He's not a criminal and
(B) he's not "seeking refuge". He's remaining at home where he's been the whole time.
The US is getting uppity at Autralia because Australia is not prosecuting him. And the REASON Autralia is not prosecuting him is because HE DID NOT BREAK THE LAW.
The US wants to extradite him so they can persecute him for "breaking codes", NOT for copyright infringment. "Breaking codes" is nothing but working out mathematics. And guess what? It's not a crime to do math in Australia! He's not a criminal.
It's my dip-shit home country of America that came up with the numbskull idea of criminalizing math.
P.S.
The Chinese people should have a revolution and overthrow their government. OOPS! I JUST VIOLATED CHINESE LAW! I guess I'm a criminal too! Quick, someone extradite me to China!
-
Parent
Re:Fear Uncle Sam (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a crime to eat chewinggum in Singapore. Does that mean Singapore can extradite and incarcerate every American who eats chewinggum in US soil?
Parent
Re:Fear Uncle Sam (Score:4, Insightful)
Chuckle.
A lot like the way the DMCA *doesn't* make fair use illegal.
-
Parent
Re:Fear Uncle Sam (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Warez is a crime IN THE US, but not in Australia.
In Germany it's illegal to say ANYTHING that is pro-nazi. Do you think that the US would even consider extraditing one of its citizens who posted something pro-nazi on a website? Of course not.
This is lunacy, pure and simple.
LK
Parent
Re:Fucktard (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, everyone, what the right wing firebrands have to resort to? They don't have a calm, rational argument to make, so they resort to namecalling and hate speech. Harldy makes my job difficult. I just make an observation and let the right-wingers bury themselves under a pile of invectives.
I refer to the presidential administration as the "Bush Admin," hardly inflammatory, and this guy refers to me as "Fucktard." That's really persuasive. Wow, what a compelling argument. Your point is the more valid one because I'm a "fucktard."
As far as the proof you ask for, the post I'm replying to is proof enough. The US is trying to get someone sent over here to face charges related to internet crimes, so I don't see why it's so far fetched that they'd send someone abroad for the same reason. It certainly would put the fear of God into every American adult site operator, and it would win massive kudos from the AFA and Christian Coalition. Of course, making Christian websites available would also be a crime in the MIddle East, but there'd be an exception made in the law for that.
Parent
Re:Not all that unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Who modded this insightful? It's stupid. It doesn't matter where the victim lives, it matters where the crime was committed. If I rob a Swiss tourist in Sydney, do I get extradited to Switzerland to stand trial for robbery? Think, people, think!
Parent
Re:"Should" is irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize, this is one of the weakest arguments you can possibly make. "Forget all intellectual arguments, precedent, centuries of commonlaw. If this happened to YOU, you'd want him hung! So it's OK to hang him!"
Try giving a few of us the benefit of the doubt that we DO value the system and won't automatically join the lynch mob at the first chance. Or, failing that, how about the idea that the entire purpose of having *impartial* judicial systems is to make sure that the victims DON'T turn into blindly self-serving mobs?
Parent
Re:The Internet is Real (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying that if I sit off-shore and beam "illega"l materials over US airwaves, that I should be arrested and tried, even though I'm not a US citizen and I was in international waters when I did the braodcasting?
Funny, 'cause the US does that all the time... we put ships and aircraft near "evil" countries and beam in locally illegal content in an attempt to incite the population to rebel.
Parent