Slashdot Mirror
Warez Suspect To Be Extradited, After All
usefool writes "After the U.S.'s first extradition request against an Australian man was denied, the U.S. appealed that decision and has now won the right to try Hew Raymond Griffiths in the U.S."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Unfortunately, he will probably be convicted, since the Department of Justiucs has already made agreements with his fellow DrinkOrDie members to shorten their sentences if they testify against him. http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,109806,0 0.asp
Here is the DOJ memo announcing this arrest, quite possibly the only document the DoJ has released with both Ashcorft's name on it and the spelling of warez with a "Z" http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/December/01_crm_6 43.htm
Umm, no. The US had to go to Australia and make their case in an Australian court before an Australian magistrate (and then an Australian appeals court) who ruled based on Australian law.
And it's relevant to note that AUstralian copyright laws are _extremely_ strict, albeit rarely (fully) enforced. We can't even make backup copies of software we own, mix CDs of music we've bought, or record (most) things off TV without breaking copyright law.
For example, I'm amazed Apple are even able to sell the iPod here in Australia, since there's practically no way it could be used without (technically) breaking the law.
I've just read the item about the extradition proceedings involving the above. The item is incorrect. All that has happened so far is that a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia has held that it is POSSIBLE for the Australian Government to extradite Griffiths to the US, if it chooses. If that decision is not reversed on any appeal, then the Australian Government (in the person of the Attorney-General) will decide whether to extradite Griffiths. If the Attorney-General decides to extradite (and sometimes A-Gs haven't, even though they had the power to do so) then Griffiths can challenge the lawfulness of that decision.
I'm not advocating trying this kind of crime at the hauge but if one was to do that I don't see why US law has anything to do with it. It would be international law that people would be tried under. I don't much like that idea though because it international law is farther from the people than national law. Its really quite simple. No extradition for crimes commited on Australian soil to the US. The example always given of somebody shooting a bullet across the boarder and killing someone does't work. Murder is in all likelyhood illegal on both sides of the boarder. If its not then there should be no extradition. If it is then the country that the person is in can try them because they pulled the trigger in that country. This same thing can apply to the internet.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
We can't even make backup copies of software we own, mix CDs of music we've bought, or record (most) things off TV without breaking copyright law.
Yes, we can make copies of software for backup, archival, compatibility and bugfix purposes. That is explicitly allowed under the Copyright Act.
Artistic works, on the other hand(video, audio, etc) may only be duplicated by the National Archives and under very strict circumstances for research purposes by accredited educational institutions.
A software product containing artistic works(Encyclopaedia CDROM for example) would probably be treated as software as long as the product was treated as a whole and not broken down into it's components or the artistic works extracted.
An artistic work containing software(Audio CDROM with data track ala EMI) would probably be treated as (an) artistic work(s).
Hopefully our courts would treat these gray areas with common sense.....
AFAIK he haven't ever been in US. How could he commit crimes there?
He made himself vulnerable to extradition by obtaining illegal access to computer hardware at an American university, and using that property to perform activity that is illegal both in the USA, and in his home coutry.
I suspect that if he had never made use of an American server, he would probably never have had a real problem. Even then - it sounds like it was a damn close thing and the Australian courts were not in complete agreement on the matter.
To use an example that is the closest parallel I can think of..there are certain medicines that are legal in the USA with a perscription - but illegal to use in Canada.
If I am a US citizen and I willingly and knowingly sell these medicines to Canadian citizens, then I have broken a law in Canada, and likely a trade agreement or treaty between the two countries. There are trade agreements and treaties between Canada and the US that cover how these issues are handled when they arise. Thats what diplomats do dfor a living.
In the interests of protecting trading interests with a foriegn country - you can bet that the US would seriously consider an extradition attempt by Canada in such a case as I have just described. It can be a fine line between medicine and traffiking.
Medium answer to a short question. I hope you found that informative.
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
It is clear: australia has given up one of the basic pillar of its sovereignity: the ultimate right of judgment on its territory. That was the basic right of kings and the basic of right of any form of state afterwards. Obviously, US tries to wash away a very important thing: the borders of the countries and thus the territories of sovereignity by referring to the Internet. It might look as a small thing, but you must consider that territory of sovereignity holds a very special importace and it is a very sensitive area. The ultimate power over a territory is the basic of all rules and laws (even back in the nature) Unfortunately it is obvious that US is doing this not for making the world a better place and making a sci-fi dream true, but for extending its power (and its companies' power) to other countries. I am not that suprised, rather sorrowful. A dream of the XX. century indepedent, soveriegn and equal nations has died. The UN failed. The history continues as it used to be for millenia. It is a bit ironic to see how unprepared your "western world" was to the simple fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only remaining superpower will behave exactly as superpowers tend to behave: they have the tendency to rule as much of the world as possible and claim as much of others' sovereignty as possible. Here in eastern europe we have seen the soviet (russian) arrogance and how our governments behaved like pet dogs of the soviet communist party (and their secretery general). And you might think it was a terrible dictatorship here. Not as bad as you might think. Just as you might expect from a "colony" of a big empire. You are not allowed to question the empire: that's all. US didn't behave like that at that time, because of PR reasons. At that time the western world had to show that they system is inherently better than the soviet communist crap. And it was at that time. How much we admired the freedom of the western world. And the idea of the _really_ free nations. Now the communists have gone. There is no real danger of (lucrative) communist ideology to conquer the world. Now your western system and the western superpower can start to show its real color. The saddest thing is that it is not necessary evil: it it just the logic of empires. It seems that - unfortunately - the democratic-capitalist western system is not inherently protected against bad governments and arrogant empires. It's just suprising to see how surprised you are that there is nothing new in history. Arrogant, militant governments and empires turn up from time to time to annouce "pax romana" (and "lex romana" obviously) of the new age. By the way, I am sure this decision was completely "legal". Legal systems are always enforced in a way how the current political systems want them to be used. Formally, they are always perfect.