Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Warez Suspect To Be Extradited, After All

Posted by timothy on from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed-threaten dept.

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."

6 of 677 comments (clear)

  1. ...doesnt look good by crazyray · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  2. Operation Buccaneer by crazyray · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  3. Re:so let me get this straight.... by drsmithy · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  4. US v Griffiths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:so let me get this straight.... by lgftsa · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.....

  6. Re:Scary ... to say the least! by the_weasel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 -