Slashdot Mirror
DrinkOrDie Warez Trader to be Extradited to U.S.
femto writes "Hew Raymond Griffiths, alleged to be one of the leaders of the warez group DrinkOrDie, is to be extradited to the United States after losing an appeal. The case is of interest as the appeal was based on the fact that during the offences, alleged to have been committed in the US, the accused did not leave Australia."
"DrinkOrDie is one of the oldest and most sophisticated software pirate groups within the 'Warez' community, which is a loose, global network of Internet pirate gangs."
If these guys don't have eye patches and peg legs I am going to be SO disappointed.
Aarrrrrrrr.
Insert witty sig here.
If there is no record of him entering the U.S., how could he possibly have commited the crimes in the U.S.?
No, I don't think the court would get it, either.
It was common throughought ancient Europe for the citizens of Rome's provinces or client states to be subject to its laws and legal process - often above and beyond those of their own state or tribe. But at least the Romans had enough decency to openly call it an Empire!
illegally cracked security codes and reproduced software, games and music worth $US50 million ($71.6 million).
....
Griffiths, who is unemployed and lives with his parents, was ordered to pay costs.
The mother, the mother! Why wont someone think of the mother?!
All Hail the great USA ... this is just BS
The Australian government does whatever the US tells it to do these days.
This case is yet another reason why the rest of the world needs to band together to curb the lawlessness of the current US administration.
In a legal dispute between a DrinkOrDie member and the United States Government, why link to a United States Government document on the group? It's a little biased.
Wikipedia, perhaps a more neutral source, has an article on DrinkOrDie
How is he going to be expected to pay the fines against him? I somehow doubt his parents could cough up the cash.
According to the article the guy being extradited is 42 years old, unemployed and lives with his parents.
How did this guy ever come under suspicion of cracking software and posting it on the Net?
Insert witty sig here.
I thought (most) countries don't extradite their own citizens, no matter what. At the very least not for relatively minor offenses like this.
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
Give this article a shot. http://www.chokedout.org/SPT--FullRecord.php?Resou rceId=261 Description: After a swift defeat last March, the American government has won an appeal in an Australian court to have Hew Raymond Griffiths extradited to America to face trial - on charges of copyright infringement. Griffiths is accused of being the ringleader of a "warez" group known as DOD (Drink or Die), using the alias Bandido. So-called warez groups reverse engineer software, freeing it of any copy protection, and spread it across the Internet free of charge. Don't be swayed by the US DOJ's propaganda about warez - its claim, for example, that it costs millions (per group) and billions (in sum total) to the software industry each year. These are the same erroneous, inflated figures pumped out by the BSA annually. What's really at stake here is the legal sovereignty of Australia. Admittedly, they gave some of that up by accepting a recent trade pact with the US, and importing the DMCA into .au law as a result. But the implications of the Griffiths' case are much more serious. "Bandido" never profited from his crimes - he was and still is, in fact, unemployed and living with his parents. He showed public disdain to those who would profit from the work of others. Nor does the American government contend this.
They also don't contend a more obvious fact - Griffiths has never set foot in America in his life. Still, despite Australian law being more than equipped to deal with such a case, the DOJ under Ashcroft has decided to impose U.S. law on the world at large.
Why is there a need for America to cast aside the Australian legal system like a weak little brother (then again, in 2004, it basically is the weak little brother, and John Howard personifies this to a T)?
Consider this another step in a downward spiral. It began with the No Electronic Theft Act - prior to the NET Act of 1997, actions such as Bandido's were permissible under United States law because he did not profit from them. The NET Act closed the loophole at the behest of Music Industry officials and others. It was the first major victory in a lobbying campaign that continues today, robbing consumers of their rights and industries of free competition. The PIRATE Act and INDUCE Act have this piece of legislation to thank for their consideration (and, most likely in one form or another, eventual passage).
Then came the DMCA, universally regarded as one of the worst technology laws ever. Implemented in 1998, it outlawed the work of professors, researchers, corporations, and has done nothing but stifle competition and criminalize actions that should be legal - such as backing up a copy of a DVD that a person has purchased.
In 2000 came raids on another warez group, PWA - Pirates with Attitudes. At the time one of the oldest pirate groups on the net (dating back to the days of underground BBS's), the group found themselves at the mercy of the Department of Justice's new push into intellectual property crime and copyright infringement - areas that in the past had been regarded as civil matters.
After originally fighting the charges, group members eventually pled guilty, but not before the government re-calculated its damages claim (to a considerably lower number), assuring themselves of relatively lenient sentences (the longest was 17 months in prison - still harsh if you want to picture millions of Americans facing this simply for using KaZaa to swap MP3s or Doom 3). Papers such as the Wall Street Journal followed the case, setting off faint alarm bells - as Lee Gomes of the WSJ put it in a 2000 article, "This sort of naughtiness has been around the personal-computing world from the very beginning. The very first business of Apple co-founders Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs was selling the '70s-era "little blue boxes" that allowed people to make free long-distance phone calls."
After that came the lesser takedown of a group known as Fastlane (who didn't crack software themselves but rather traded it, making them essentially a
Those were the days, early/mid 90's, you truly have to be stupid or underage to do this now. From ftp's such as Bleach Box (BBX) to the early days of the Rock Creek BBS, ahh, memories....
-anonymous (ex-RiSC/RzR/DoD)
As an American I've been wondering for a while why your government pretty much does whatever we tell them to do, without any sort of problems with resentment, national pride, or even seemingly rational thought. I can never see an American being extridited to Australia for an alleged crime, who has never actually been to Australia. I know that Howard is an ass (the opinion of most aussies I meet). But being a total neo-conservative prick doesn't really explain it, especially in cases like this. What do you really think the Australian government gets for being our lapdog?
...from one country to another, the country I bomb can't touch me?
It's understandable for the target country to pursue you, and for a missile I wouldn't be surprised if they're willing to break some rules to do so.
However, if your own country doesn't see fit to make the action illegal then I can see no reason for them to extradite you for an act they themselves permit. Similarly, if there are laws against it in the home country then I can see no reason why they should extradite one of their own people rather than having them tried under their own laws. Apart from anything else, extradition to a foreign jurisdiction is a pretty extreme action imposed upon someone deemed to be innocent untless proven guilty.
I'd love to help, but it is REALLY out of the realm of 'easy to answer'
Hey, I bet the US wasn't the only place he committed these offences. He probably uploaded and infringed on software products all over the world.
Why should the US have sole custody of the guy? Why not visit Japan and England as well on a government sponsored world tour? If he is lucky, there may be a few Eastern Bloc countries as well.
When escaping the law and fleeing the US do not hide in Australia. Damn, I really wanted a pet dingo too.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
And let's describe Attila the Hun as someone with "an active, outdoor lifestyle."
--George Carlin
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
I am an aussie and our government DOES do whatever the US says.
Two australians were being held in guantanamo bay while the french and british got their nationals back.
Our prime minister, john howard, is a lap dog of the US army. We always have been, korea, vietnam, gulf I, gulf II.
The parent is not refering to ganging up to attack the US, just that there should be groups powerful enough to counter-balance. Nobody has a problem with US power, just with unbridled US superpower with a motley crew of fools, religious nuts and captains of industry directing it.
There are pirate gangs now? Arrrr, I best be hiding my booty.
If this guy's headed for Federal Prison, that's a good plan.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Judge: So what evidence do you have? Perhaps some incriminating documents?
Prosecution: No.
Judge: Surveillence tapes?
Proescution: Er, no.
Judge: Wiretap?
Prosecution: Not today, your honor, no.
Judge: Well what *do* you have?
Prosecution: Well, it's quite simple. Barring the creation of some kind of hyper-intelligent android (which we shall call EvilHackingPirateScumBot), the man responsible for these reprehensible acts MUST be a human being...
Judge: Go on...
Prosecution: Now, I direct your attention to exhibit A--the defendant. As can be clearly seen, he is in fact a human!
Judge: My God, you're right!
Prosecution: So, from this, we can clearly see that since the man we are after is a human, and the defendant is also a human, then he must have done it!
Judge: You know, you're right! Bailiff, take this man away.
Prosecution: (haha, suckers)
Judge: But you know, I can't help but notice that you're a human as well...
Prosecution: Well, I hardly think...
Judge: I see now, this was all just a ploy! Bailiff, arrest every human in this courtroom, and then throw yourself in a cell...
We're geeks... We're the sorcerers of the modern-day world. --
"Our prime minister, john howard, is a lap dog of the US army. We always have been, korea, vietnam, gulf I, gulf II."
Way to give evidence. Considering that John Howard wasn't in power for any of these except for Gulf II, your argument holds about as much water as a busted sieve.
The fact is that Australian governments for decades have realised that having America as a friend is a good idea. They essentially kept us from starving during World War 2 and since then we've paid back the favour.
While I think the current round in Iraq was less than wise and proper, it's hard to back down when you have a precedent. We've been there for the honest wars and the stupid ones too. If your friend helps when you're drunk and puking on his carpet, he's a true mate and you owe him.
Same principle.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
This to me doesnt seem like the huge abuse people are alledging, and I'm not feeling a slippery slope here either.
Because you are a fucktard.
If he broke Australian law, he should be punished by Australia. If he never set foot in the US or sent someone to act on his behalf to the US, the US has no claim on him. I really hope he gets a jury trial, and I really hope that people with a sense of national pride are on his jury.
This creates a precedent for extraditing Americans to other countries that they never set foot in to answer for crimes that they couldn't have possibly committed.
Remember about 10 years ago those guys in the camo BDUs who were talking about a New World Order? This is precisely the kind of thing that they ranted about.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
No, but I think it's comparing apples and oranges. Sadly, the courts go your way. Read up on U.S. v Noriega and you shall find what you seek. Here's the best I could google quickly:
http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/Noriega.html
What you are after and the clueless below seem not to understand is the issue of territorial jurisdiction. I think the precedents are wrong-headed, but it is what it is.
Global communications schemes are going to make many extraterritorial acts fall under the reach of the U.S. or whomever wants to prosecute the offense. The legal nightmares have only just begun. If you did it on the internet, you violated a law somewhere at sometime. Sweet dreams...
So you're saying you should be extradited to Iran because the things you say on the 'net are illegal there?
"Australia is worldwide known for it's backbone..."
Sarcasm like this is a bit rich coming from an Anonymous Coward.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
I good example would be that Pornography in Australia has a minimum age of 16 whereas in America is 18, therefore sites like hushhush.com are illegal in the states. Should the webmasters be extrodited as child pornographers?
so in other words, you're open to extraditing americans to saudi arabia because they violated saudi religious heresy laws?
how about extraditing salman rushdie to iran? they have a long standing death sentence on him for violating iranian law. he _is_ guilty as all hell, after all.
see topic
During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the idea was less irrational than you might think. Then president Soekarno not only was uncannily friendly to China and the Soviets (scary!), he also had this megalomaniac idea that the entire region should be united into one humongous country that would include Malaysia, the Philippines and even Madagascar (based on some weird idea of shared ethnicity). In the end all that came of it was the inclusion of the western half of New Guinea into Indonesia (thanks in no small part to the US and Australia - great thinking there, guys!), but at one point in time the threat posed by Indonesia was very real.
Technically, copyright infringement isn't theft.
But copyright infringement is just as illegal.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So, do they still have a website? I need to update my copy of Windows 73.
Funny! Actually, I'm still sort of upset by that decision. And guess what? Other schools decided to follow suit (such as MIT's business school, and a few of the others)!
It seems a bit scary that this "Warez Trader" is getting extradited, but I guess his crimes are more serious than we would like to admit.
Murdoch.
Country's.
Criticisms.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
And equally, should American pornographers like Hefner be extradited to Saudi Arabia?
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
It's exactly the same tactic psychologically they used in the Stalin Russia, but in gloves - no torture and he won't be executed at the end, only his life would be ruined and he would have to struggle with it till natural end.
So in other words this a nasty PR stunt to protect the revenue streams of already rich and powerful. Nothing new really, it's been going like this for ages, just with less hiporcisy - all land belonged to king and nobility and different rules applied to them than to average peasants.
Yeah, but it's a "victimless" crime (as it only really affects companies, never mind that they're just groups of people trying to make a living) and besides doesn't affect people here (as most of the ones that are programmers licence their stuff under OSS licences, conveniently forgetting that those licences wouldn't be worth the bits they're composed of without copyright law to back them up), so we don't care. Oh, unless someone violates the GPL, then they're evil and we come down on them like a ton of bricks.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Those of us outside the US are just not interested in bowing to your retard of a leader. Fuck Bush and fuck the American Empire.
Innocent until proved guilty doesn't exist anymore.
Nodays someone calls either terrorist or copywrite infringer and you're guilty no matter what.
So can I be extradited to America for consuming alcohol before I was 21? Can they arrest me for it if I go there on holiday? Of course we all know the laws of the US are more important then other democratic countries. And my (Australian) government is happy to hand people over to the Americans who have broken no laws in Australia.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
In some countries some kinds of webpages are illegal - for example, webpages that spread "hate speach" such as nazi stuff.
Or in china there are probably a hole bunch of kinds of webpages that are forbidden.
So, using this extradition as a referense, if someone in the USA made one of these illegal pages; which are not illegal in the USA but elsewhere, it would be possible to have him extradited because he DID commit a crime in another country - without leaving US.
Is that fair? Is that good?
What about dictatorship X (imaginary) which bans 99% of all webpages on the web? Are we all going to be extradited then? Horrible!
and the US doesn't pull sweden's strings ...yet.
One of the oldest groups?
:p
I'd take that bet. Didn't they come around in 1998 or so?
I dunno, I stopped keeping up with groups after BBS's went the way of the Dodo. PWA 4 71F3
Man, everyone is so pissed about this, but I just can't seem to get up the energy to want to defend this guy since he's guilty as hell.
Let me guess, you're a defense witness supporting the argument that he'll never get a fair trial in America?
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
I'm not sure about that, really. I can only speak for myself, of course, but what bugs me about this is not that he got busted and is now facing charges for what he did; what bugs me is that he's extradited.
I mean... why? Either what he did is illegal under Australian law, in which case he should be tried there (after all, he IS an Australian citizen), or it's not, in which case, well, he shouldn't be extradited.
Think about it: would you like the USA to send you to China because you said something that's against the law there, for example? I think it's pretty safe to say that you don't. Of course, that's entirely hypothetical since I can't imagine that he did NOT commit a crime under Australian law, but that still leaves the question: why not try him in Australia?
I am not sure at all about the reasons for that myself, so far, but it seems to me that there are two possible scenarios, and both of them seem to be designed to erode basic freedoms:
1. He's sentenced in the USA and sent to a prison in Australia. This would set a dangerous precedent - if you can be jailed in Australia without being sentenced there, then how or why can you be sure that the same thing will not happen to you when you're sentenced (in another country) for something that is not a crime under Australian law? To pick up the example from above, how can you be sure that you don't get sent to jail for something that you did that's illegal in, for example, China, Saudi Arabia or another dictatorship with enough economic power to be accepted by politicians in (western) democracies? And again, there's also the question why he isn't tried in Australia, under Australian law - it's not even like there is anything gained.
2. He's sentenced in the USA and sent to a prison in the USA. Same thing, really - possibly worse, in fact, as this would also mean that there is no control over what happens to him while in prison. Remember, he's still an Australian citizen, and as such has rights; it is not at all clear that those rights would be respected in a US-american prison. To give two examples, from what I understand, it's common for inmates in the USA to a) be forced to work and b) lose their right to vote; this may or may not seem acceptable to any US-american, but the fact remains that similar treatment would not be legal in other states. Of course, voting probably is a non-issue, since it most likely only applies to the ability to vote in US elections, which he most likely couldn't, anyway, but still - I don't see how this is different from "exporting" people to other states like Afghanistan etc. where the US administration can hold/question/torture them without having to respect the rights they'd have in the USA. (And before you say that that ain't happening, look up information on Khamed El-Masri, for example).
In either case, it really seems that there is no actual valid reason why he SHOULD be extradited, and several good reasons why he should NOT. Considering that not extraditing him would be the "natural" thing to do, anyway, that very much leaves the question why it's being done, and I think it's a valid question to ask and be concerned about.
Yeah, he's a criminal, and if he gets sent to prison, he most likely will have gotten what he deserves. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't still have rights, that he doesn't still reserve to be respected as a human being, and that he (or anyone else) does not have the right to ask questions or demand his rights.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
When was the latest extradition of an Australian for theft?
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
Geo-strategic support. Australia is the English-speaking outpost in the Asia region. It is also a glittering strategic prize in the Asian and Pacific area. It's all about resources, warfare and logistics to the area.
But Sweden (which is where ThePirateBay resides, if I'm informed correctly) is not Australia. And furthermore, what this guy did *was* illegal in Australia, which is something that the PirateBay guys claim is not true in their case. I'm not sure, but I think even Howard's government has enough decency left to not just arrest people because the USA tells them, when no illegal activity occured under Australian law (well, that's what I hope, anyway).
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
When will they learn? One falls ten more replace them. Simile of the day: Legal action, mpaa, riaa, etc is to pirating as an umbrella is to a tsunami. Not going to make a lick of difference. Hey! I've got an idea, instead of spending the time and money on bringing non-us citizens over here for trial... the Software/Movie/Music industry should fix the problems that cause piracy. (Not all, but some, and my own) I.E.: The games that spend 90% of the budget on the advertising and not the game itself. The movie that baits by showing the best 5 minutes of the movie in trailers and shoveling an hour and a half of crap in between. The Cd with one good song and another 50 minutes of garbage. With legal threats and riaa/mpaa finger pointing. Something my granny used to say, bless her corpse, was "When you start pointing fingers, you only have 3 pointing back at yourself." Thats why when I point at industry(s)... I only use one finger. ;)
Even since I started reading slashdot, I lost all respect for Australia as a nation. It must be hard to be proud to be australian when your government is such an american puppet...as opposed to, say, France.
Everybody probably knows this but it bears repeating. Federal prisons aren't so bad in that respect. It's state penitentiaries that you want to stay away from.
Well by that token, why not "sharing the wealth" groups? All of these terms have an inherent bias, one way or another. "Citizens (who generally have reasons for what they do) accused of a crime" would be the best term imho, but since it's long-winded and we like soundbytes that ignore the concept of innocence until proven guilty, we're not going to see that.
I bet it cost as much to get him extracted as his actions cost the software companies...
I can now stop time, but the effect is only temporary
Pornography - in its legally defined form - is illegal in most states of Australia. Seriously.
People can and have been prosecuted for possession and distribution of 'X' rated material.
'Nude photography' however, (ie bums and boobs) is not considered pornography under the law, and has a minimum age of 16 (with parental consent IIRC). There has been more than one case where the model in a particular magazine was old enough to pose, but still too young to legally buy the magazine.
The difference is that it is illegal in BOTH countries. So stop acting like Australia is merely caving to the whims of America.
Slashdot is so full of conspiracy theorists...
Copying is not stealing.
Otherwise theft laws would apply. But copyright laws are the relevant laws in this case.
Even though he made copies and let other people have access to them, the copyright owners still have access to their own originals and copies.
[If he broke some other law in order to get copies then those laws apply.]
So it's not really stealing unless you believe that the Copyright Owners have _automatic_ right to your money just because you use a copy instead. Remember: copyright is a "limited" granted monopoly over copying and distribution, and most copyright laws have fair use clauses.
In fact to me what really is stealing is the extension of copyright terms especially the _retroactive_ extensions in the US.
When a copyright term expires, the copyrighted work enters the Public Domain - in which case the public has full access to the work - they can freely and legally make copies and derivative works.
IMO extending copyright terms can arguably be viewed as closer to stealing. Stealing from the Public - since they are removing access to works that would have otherwise be or become publicly accessible.
But worse are the _retroactive_ extensions - works that are actually already public domain, are then suddenly taken away from the Public.
So who are the real thieves?
Think about it.
Don't get brainwashed by the Media Industry etc. They like to use terms lik stealing, pirates, intellectual property, just to brainwash people. It works. I think even judges and lawmakers are starting to get brainwashed.
The US copyright extension is closer to the Lawnmower Copying Monopoly promising to let the public copy a lawnmower after X years so that the Public can freely make copies of it, and then bribing/convincing law makers so that they only have to return it after 20 years more (or till they stop bribing them). Sure it's not legally stealing - coz the lawmakers changed the law after all, but morally/ethically I believe it is closer to stealing than copyright infringement- which is just making copies of the lawnmower (sure that hurts the industry with a legal monopoly on lawnmower copying, but is it stealing? If I buy a different lawnmower or don't use lawnmowers I also hurt them).
I leave the analogy for the retroactive extensions to you.
If you were a shoplifter, would you like to be called a rapist? Even if the populace in general started calling all shoplifters "rapists"? And if this happened because some Sears-CEO showed on TV saying "those shoplifters are raping me, they are rapists"?
That is the question. Calling copyright infringers "pirates" is a marketing ploy (brought to you by your *AA and other copyright-holder-associations in the world) to make other people think: (a) that copyrights as implemented today is a perfect system and (b) that people who infringe copyrights are the worse scum on Earth.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
They also view themselves as Robin Hood figures -- pirating new software so it can be distributed freely over the Internet. They seek an Internet devoid of rules or law.
...
and who are we
Extradiction of nationals is forbidden by our Constitution.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I don't think it's that serious a crime. The people don't seem to think so either.. What percentage of people do you think have infringed copyright at some stage? More than fifty?
If that's the case, maybe democracy ought to do something about that...
Ok, I totally agree that software piracy must be eliminated and pirates are thefts. But original software is way too expensive, especially for people without their own income.
.NET is $840. Half Life 2 is $49. etc
For example, Microsoft Windows XP Home is $116.99. Microsoft Office Student is $124.99. Visual Studio
If I am forced to use Windows, due to various reasons (either because I am a programmer and my job is on a project that is developed on Windows, or a student that wants to learn Windows or because everybody sends me Word documents or for any other reason), then original software is way too expensive. Of course there are alternatives, but if am *forced* to use software that is sold for a price, then it's too expensive.
Why original software is that expensive? Microsoft has already covered the expenses of all software development and marketing multiple times for all its products and for future research, and their spare cash are enough to feed a country. When I buy a copy of their software, 99% of the price goes in Bill's pockets. Why should I make Bill richer? (I am only talking about Microsoft because its the easiest example. The same goes for every other money charging software company).
So piracy will exist as long as prices are so big that allow people to become so rich as to have more money than entire countries. From an organized society's perspective, it sounds crazy. From a free market perspective, it is ok (hey free market drives economy as well as technological advance), but it is still scandalous.
A civilized country would NEVER extradite one of their own citizens on this basis. This is really an interesting and rather scaring precedent. However, perhaps the Aussies just did it to save themselves the trouble of the CIA kidnapping the guy out of their prison. Don't laugh, this HAS happended (at least in one European country which often is wrongly associated with Kangaroos)
-- The Online Photo Editor - http://www.phixr.com
No.
Generally, all extradition treaties have provision where country A will not extradite a person to country B unless the offense with which he is charged is a crime in country A.
For AU to extradite him to the US, the act he is charged with must be considered a crime by AU.
your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through
You're equating a copyright violation to an act of war.
You work for the RIAA/MPAA/BSA right?
No, because the webmasters are not commiting a crime in their country of residence. I'm not familiar with AUian law (and am not a lawyer in any case), but somehow I doubt that what DrinkOrDie are doing is legal in AU...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You can also do no disservice to the US government, it is nothing but a bullying, selfish, semi-democratically elected thug with no sence of morality.
Fuck Australia. Fuck America. I'm going somewhere where the government has integrity.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
I thought Australia had a law that stopped them extraditing people to countries where those people were likely to face human rights abuses such as torture, execution and right-wing conservatives?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
In a decade's time, this will be an important part in enabling a global death penalty for intellectual-property theft.
(And it will happen. The most valuable property in the West is intellectual property, which is easy to steal and difficult to defend. If a crime is economically serious and hard to prosecute, the penalties must be made very severe to act as a deterrent (the proportion is exponential to difficulty of prosecution).)
He didn't violate Australian law, he violated US law. He does have people in the US acting on his behalf to distribute his 'warez'.
Well, he's NOR a US citizen, and he's NOT *in* the US, so US law obviously does NOT apply.
If the US Government has a problem with this individual they can complain with the Australian police and see if they are willing to pursue.
Why not run only/use OSS, that way you know that no Money has gone into the wrong hands.
Or move to Cuba!
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
"To give two examples, from what I understand, it's common for inmates in the USA to a) be forced to work and b) lose their right to vote; this may or may not seem acceptable to any US-american, but the fact remains that similar treatment would not be legal in other states."
I don't think the DoD member should be extradited, and the rest of your post makes sense, but this part confused me a bit. In what nation are inmates not expected to work...?
I'm not an expert in this area, so I can't say really, but... shouldn't that be the case in every state that upholds human rights?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
As an Australian, who has lived and worked with many other Australians, I can't think of a statement that is any further from the truth.
Pirates often operate at night:
"Many are successful white-collar business people by day, and DrinkOrDie members by night."
Pirates don't want any laws related to the Internet: (what, so they aren't just not respecting copyrights?)
"They seek an Internet devoid of rules or law."
Profits through piracy may be a secondary motive, via website subscriptions: (wtf? web sites? what happened to Usenet, FTP and IRC?)
"Profit does not appear to be a prime motive, although members operate websites that allow users and other members to download pirated software for a monthly subscription fee."
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The thing that is most disturbing about this is not that people can get extradited for copyright violations, it is that the US can get someone to be extradited for this, but that hell would freeze over before the US would extradite a US citizen for this kind of offense to another nation.
In my lifetime, as I remember it, the American Empire started with the invasion of the nation of Panama and the kidnapping of President Manuel Noriega.
It was during the reign of Bush the First, as I recall. Citing the justification that the President of Panama was involved in the drug trade, the United States invaded the nation of Panama, surrounded the Presidential compound, blared rock music at high decibel levels, and eventually dragged the President of Panama back to a hole in the U.S. until someone remembered to charge him with something and convict him some years after.
Americans thought it was rather funny. I don't recall a single newsman questioning our right to invade Panama. The comedians made fun of Noriega's complexion, but said not one word about the slaughter we perpetrated.
Wow. Imagine a south/central American nation involved in the drug trade. Imagine the CIA ever caring. Negroponte, one of Bush the Second's new viceroys, was up to his ass in creating the death squads back in the 80's. Mass murder is okay, drugs are not...
According to REALLY supressed statistics the Panamanians kept, the U.S. killed over 2000 civilians rolling into Panama. Armed forces, I don't know, And I have no idea what the hell they charged Noriega with, what he was convicted of, or who sat in judgement. Nor under what possible set of international laws the U.S. could use to invade, kill, and kidnap the Executive in other nations because someone there ships chemicals some Americans don't want other Americans to use for recreational purposes. Imagine: Iraq eventually invading the U.S., killing about a half million people. Imagine them surrounding the White House with loud speakers blasting calls to prayer to drive the inhabitants insane. Imagine the Iraqi's dragging Bush II back to Iraq in irons to face charges for invading Iraq under false auspices. Imagine Iraq setting up a friendly government in the U.S. so that they could get favorable oil prices forevermore. And they'd have more justification than we had for kidnapping and murdering Panamanians.
After all, the Panama Canal was about to pass into Panamanian control in 1999. There wouldn't be any incentive to keep the locks in a friendly puppet's hand, would there?
And I really don't want to hear about Noriega's evil rule. No American ever gave a bloody damn about evil rulers in Panama, and we never will.
So, where do you draw the line?
Distributing kiddie porn is not an act of war, nor is exploiting children to make it. Extradite, or don't extradite?
Using email to organize and execute other crimes (murder, theft, kidnapping) in the U.S. from a foreign country is not an "act of war." Extradite or don't extradite?
I do not understand this pervasive attitude that IT crime is somehow "lesser" than a crime with visible/tangible results. Some go so far as to defend IT offenses "victimless" crimes. I always wonder whether the more vociferous defenders are themselves warez traders or script kiddies--why else would they so dilligently defend the indefensible?
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Half of your wish is already taken care of. We Ameicans happily go to Wal-Mart to shop for cheap Chinese stuff and thereby boycott American goods. As for military 'misadventures'- humm let's see, European misadventures 1. Crusades, 2. Colonialism, 3. WWI, 4. WWII, -American 'misadventures' are basically cleaning up after those messes. Thank goodness those Europeans know better than we do.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Mate, we're all descendants of convicts. EVERYTHING is legal here.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
what is this government integrity of which you speak?
But represnting the truth doesnt help their marketing plan..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Personally neither do I. *WE* are the only ones that count as far as im concerned beacuse I live here.
Now, before you all mod me as a troll, I also belive that you are within your rights to feel the same about wherever you live.. If you dont, perhaps you shouldnt be living there..
And to take that to the conclusion, if ones leader doesnt believe that his ocuntry comes first, I wouldnt want him to be in office.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You need to be aware of the consequences of your actions. Ignorance is no excuse is just about a global standard. The US Department of Justice can even prosecute a US citizens that breaks US laws out side the US, even if it's legal in the country where the offense if committed. People have been arrested at airports after, "Sex Holidays", abroad. This was enacted by the Clinton Administration as a human rights act to reduce sex crimes against children abroad.
Fuck Australia. Fuck America. I'm going somewhere where the government has integrity.
Good luck finding that.
"there's no such thing as international law"
Unless someone coerced you into using it, you were not forced to do anything.
The rest of the market sends you complex formatted Microsoft Word documents and expects you to send complex formatted Word documents in return, and the market can withhold your paycheck if you refuse to use Word. So it's use Word or starve to death. How is this not coercion?
I've heard there are many opportunities in the low-end catering industry
To feed a wife and kids and pay down a student loan?
bleh
By the way, moderators, why do you waste moderator points on an off topic discussion about shoes?
As opposed to a system choked with corrupt capitalism to the point of uselessness? No thanks.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
But worse are the _retroactive_ extensions - works that are actually already public domain, are then suddenly taken away from the Public.
Only European countries re-copyrighted works whose copyright under the old term had expired. The United States and Australia, on the other hand, extended copyright but kept all works published before 1923 (in the USA's case) or whose last surviving author died before 1934 (in Australia's case) in the public domain.
(sure that hurts the industry with a legal monopoly on lawnmower copying, but is it stealing? If I buy a different lawnmower or don't use lawnmowers I also hurt them)
To continue the analogy to copyrighted works, if you buy a different lawnmower, you are buying from a rogue manufacturer who subconsciously copied the designs of the lawnmower cartel[1]. If you don't use a lawnmower, the local government slaps you down with a weed warning.
[1] Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp. 177 (SDNY 1976)
Title: Extradition : a review of Australia's law and policy / Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
Author: Australia. Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
Some interesting facts and background on Australian extradition policy. Includes statistics on extraditions.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
It's not that computer crime is lesser, it's that it's treated as greater.
Do you really equate this act to shooting kiddie porn or murder? There are war criminals who get away by hiding in foreign countries. The US picked up flack for invading Afghanistan to track down Usama Bin Laden, but picking up a copyright violator is a-ok?
Update old Windows here.
How does this work legally? Is it an international treaty both countries have signed? Don't know much about law, sorry, how can the US start pulling people out of other countries? Is it because this guy is breaking US copyright laws in Oz? What happens if I broke another type of US law in my country... ?
Whether he should be extradited to the United States is debatable but Warez fags should be hung by their balls for being so fricking ignorant. You want a fully loaded OS use OSS and one of the many great OS's. Don't sacrifice your ethics for a damned computer... Geez.
Brian Seppanen
Minister of Information and Propaganda
Area 54 The Secret Government Disco Labs Provo
I made no equation. I reponded to the parent, which *did* make an equation. I simply pointed out that crime is crime, and just because it is IT based has no mitigating (nor magnifying--agreed) effect.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
You forgot
e) Breasts!
f) CowboyNeal's relatives
Seriously, though, this *is* a political crime -- it's a crime against capitalism. The real problem with the simile is that the perpetrator was not in the country where the crime was committed, unlike what happened to the forced emigrees.
If this guy gets extradited, there's something seriously wrong with world politics. That puts the onus on the indidivual to not break any laws *outside* his own country, which is, of course, impossible. Should one get extradited to the US for publishing info on how to make a pipe bomb? How about making disparaging remarks about a Bush? Or what about posting pornography? That would get you a sentence in China, and depending on the type of pornography, in the US too. How about extraditing you to China for having more than two kids? Of course that's unreasonable, but where do you set the limit?
This is a very slippery slope, and the best thing to do is to not get on it at all. The judges should be smart enough to realise this, and not set the snowball moving.
Regards,
--
*Art
No - the part I think most people overlook is, these "warez groups" are notoriously competitive with each other, and elitist in their attitudes.
Far from simply "providing copies of hundreds of thousands of titles to basically anybody", they're extremely difficult to work with if you want them to provide you with anything.
With the massive distribution and communications power of the Internet, sure - these things leak out all over the place eventually. (If you need a particular application badly enough and have the time to spend hunting it down, you can beg and plead in numerous IRC chat rooms until someone you private message finally agrees to send the cracked version over to you, for example.) But groups like DoD weren't just running like a software charity - welcoming any and all onto high bandwidth distribution servers.
They've actually got a whole "power structure" in place, so only appointed "couriers" are even allowed to download their cracked software in the first place, and then they're only supposed to redistribute it to specific people/places that made previous arrangements/deals with their group leaders.
I agree that if you're a part of this and live/work in a country with copyright legislation in place and enforced (like the U.S.), then you better expect some punishment if you're caught. But extradition from another country for this? Like others said - truthfully, it's tough to pin an individual member of a group like this down to having done much worse than simply disabling copy protection mechanisms in code. The guys doing the cracking aren't the ones doing the actual distributing, and vice-versa. And ultimately, aren't the end-users installing this stuff the ones responsible? It'd seem pointless to prosecute everyone who cracked a piece of software if nobody was bothering to download it and install it afterwards, instead of just buying it instead.
So much for being protected by the queen... Now the poor guy will end up in a US Fedral Pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
So... what are you arguing against, if you don't like semantic games? Let's look...(from parent):
You have to love how they demonize everyone by using labels like "gang of internet pirates"
"Gang" and "pirate" both have specific, rather loaded meanings. Teh intarnet just makes it sound current, edgy and like consumer-consumer communication is new and stuff, and must be suppressed for the good of buggy-whip makers everywhere.
If you want to defend attacks on copyright infringers, a great place to start would be comparing them to other white-collar crime (because that's what this is), and explain how defrauding thousands for millions is less bad than copying music. Really, go compare punishments (and by this I mean civil settlements as well as penalties - compare the reparations with the putative deprivation from interested parties). After all, we have a rational legal system, right?
I realize that is a digression, but I don't think it is a herring, red or otherwise. Liquidating the company's retirement plan to prop up quarterly profit wins you a slap, and distributing music should bankrupt you instead?
Oh, wait - bankruptcy is now only for the rich.
I forget what 8 was for.
don't have kids
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
"Crime is Crime"
Just exactly what the hell does that mean? I hear that quite a bit. Are you saying that all crimes are equivalent? Obvious nonsense. If not, just what are you saying?
"just because it is IT based has no mitigating (nor magnifying--agreed) effect."
Sure it does, unless you attach the same (or less) value to human life as you do money and property --- which appears to be a growing trend.
> so in other words, you're open to extraditing americans to saudi arabia because they violated saudi religious heresy laws?
If I was using servers and resources in Saudi Arabian's to commit acts of heresy there, then I would fully expect to get extradited.
The internet IS NOT boundaryless, and like it allows you to communicate with other people all over the world, it exposes you to the laws all over the world. You should consider what laws you are exposing yourself to before you do anything on a system that is in another country.
That IS a scary thought, and I hope that the sheer expense and difficulty of extradition makes it difficult to do on a wide spread basis for minor infractions.
I believe the phrase was "a congo line of arse-lickers"
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
Perhaps they are afraid that the US will invade them if they don't comply?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
It means "Crime is crime, and just because it is IT based has no mitigating (nor magnifying--agreed) effect."
If I steal your wallet, it is a crime (theft). If I steal money from your back account via a hack or internet scam, it is a crime (theft).
I did not write that all crimes are equivalent, that came from your imagination. My point was and is that the same crime committed "in person" or via IT is equivalent.
Further, certain property crimes are no less devastating than assaultive crimes in terms of having permanent, life-altering effects on the victim. As far as I am concerned, bilking a widow out of here life savings and leaving her destitute should be a capital crime, for the perpetrator is no less an unredeemable sociopath than a serial killer. To warehouse said perpetrator in prison for the rest of his life has no value to society and serves only to drain resources better spent elsewhere. He will never contribute anything of value, has no redeeming qualities, so why should his life be preserved?
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
No fucktard, this does not create a precedent for extraditing Americans to other countries.
This creates a precedence for extraditing Australians to the US. read the F'ing article asshat before you spout.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Indeed. Too bad we don't have people who can judge whether extradition is suitable on a case-by-case basis...
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
My point was and is that the same crime committed "in person" or via IT is equivalent.
I won't argue with that. Why didn't you say so in the first place instead of being vague?
He will never contribute anything of value, has no redeeming qualities, so why should his life be preserved?
And who are you (or anyone else) to judge that someone will never contribute anything of value or that they have no redeeming qualities? His life should be preserved for several reasons. One of the most important reasons is redemption. People change. It is entirely possible that he might someday turn into a good person. Who knows, he may someday save your life. Isn't that worth something?
It's always amusing to watch somebody not from the United States pull out the "executed" line.
Not that I defend everything our country does, but we do not execute most of our murderers and/or rapists. IANAL, so I don't know exactly what determines whether or not the prosecution will seek the death penalty (it has something to do with premeditation, intent, and how much you can pay your lawyers, I believe), but very few people are executed in the US every year. For example, last year, 59 inmates were executed.
Don't get me wrong - I think that executing anyone damages who we are (and I know this puts me in the minority here in the US). It's just that we're not as primitive as many people like to think we are.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
i remember trying a beta of 95, likely theirs, it didn't work, my drive was kerboshed, and i lost all my old ANSi drawings and emails pre 94ish.
When something done in one country has an effect in another country, the courts of the affected country often will have jurisdiction to hear matters related. For example, if someone in Australia shot an arrow into the United States and hurt someone, the US could ask for them to be extradited. That this was an economic crime rather than a homicide doesn't make much difference as far as this principle is concerned.
This isn't something done by the US alone; if you are seriously bored (and have serious fortitude), take a look at some of the EU's competition (aka antitrust) regulations that have forbidden companies wholly outside of the EU from merging because of the 'effect' it would have on competition inside the EU.
Antitrust regulations are a cause for much debate in the international community in terms of whether a country can assert that kind of power on persons and corporations outside of its borders. Of less debate (though still debated when it comes to some legal areas) are criminal issues like the one in the article.
"European misadventures 1. Crusades, 2. Colonialism, 3. WWI, 4. WWII, -American 'misadventures' are basically cleaning up after those messes"
-Korean War
-Vietnam
-Iraq v1
-Iraq v2
-Meddling in Argentina, Afghanistan, Pre-war Iraq, Cuba, amongst others.
Take your head outta your ass.
The reach of the Corporate dominated U.S. Civil and Criminal Court systems is totally out of control.
Copyright infringement should be a strictly civil case, but the media giants have decided to get rough. We should indeed get rough back. For example, while I'm not downloading I refuse to purchse music or video, or even buy new software. What I need I turn to GPL sources for.
If more people did this and really put the hurt on maybe we wouldn't be dominated by corporate fictions.
"People change. It is entirely possible that he might someday turn into a good person. Who knows, he may someday save your life. Isn't that worth something?"
Someday, Kim Jong Il *might* become a benevolent humanitarien. Isn't that worth something?
Someday, Josef Mengele *might* have discovered a cure for cancer. Isn't that worth something?
Someday, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah *might* become a philanthropist and use his fortune for the betterment of mankind. Isn't that worth something?
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
There's nothing funny about rape. No matter who the victim is. It's still reality that it happens. By some estimates, more often in prison than outside.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Panama is part of North America, not South America. See the continent maps.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Too bad we don't have people who can judge whether extradition is suitable on a case-by-case basis...
ALL of us get to judge whether it is or isn't suitable. Refusing to do so on the basis that someone else is paid to make an actual decision would be the height of moral cowardice.
If you can come up with a convincing reason as to why an Austrlian citizen should be extradited based on allegations of acts performed entirely within Australia then I'll be impressed.
If the acts were illegal in Australia then he should be tried there, where he's alleged to have committed the acts, where he's familiar with the culture and the legal system and where he isn't a foreigner to the jury.
If the acts weren't illegal in Australia then it should be contrary to public policy to exdradite one of their citizens for performing those acts in Australia.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
Are you trying to make some kind of point with that? Or are you advocating that people should forfeit their lives for even the tiniest little infraction?
All your hackerz are belong to U.S.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
BTW, the Germans have it good: the constitution provides that German citzens can under no circumstances be extradited to another country.
...talk about the "Long Arm of the Law"
Looks like those arms have fully embraced the entire planet now. *spooky*
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
This makes me mad , how bloody ironic is that the US can make Australia extradite its own citizens for "Copyright Infringement", yet the US wont even sign (and is bribing other countries not to as well) the treaty for the International Criminal court that would allow prosecution of War crimes and wouldn't even require countries to extradite to it if there own legal systems could handle the alleged crime.., Bloody Howard (I am currently living in NZ and I am starting to actually like NZ's socialist overlords in comparison) someone needs to give Costello the keys to a bus ..
Whoever controls the present controls the past, whoever controls the past controls the future
I am tired of having to explain everything. If you can't see the connection, then forget it.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
I hardly think IT crime is "out of sight, out of mind" among /. denizens.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
"The term 'hacker' and the term 'pirate' are both wrong even though they have entered into common usage and were introduced as a deliberate ploy."
I seem to recall that we computer hobbyists referred to ourselves as hackers with some pride back in the '70s, but maybe I'm getting old and my memory is getting fuzzy. I certainly don't recall what the deliberate ploy was, nor what we had in mind when we devised it; perhaps I missed the planning meeting, does someone have minutes?
"To call someone a pirate indicates theft even though none took place."
Rather than 'theft' (which is an obviously wrong term), what about 'illegal aquisition'? Makes sense now, doesn't it? I'd say the bias is in your perception, since the dictionary doesn't use the word 'theft' as part of that definition of pirate. You're the one who invoked the word, and then proceeded to put it in the mouths of others; I don't claim to know what everyone else in the world thinks when they hear a particular word, which is why I refer to the dictionary and use the standard definition.
"...they use the media (who love a little spin) to quote them saying 'pirate' and next thing you know everyone is saying that."
Which is exactly the point you missed: the word pirate in this context predates the mass media, the **AAs are merely making use of a pre-existing definiton (unless you're suggesting that the **AAs have sent someone back in time; they have surprising powers, but I wasn't aware that was one of them). Besides, they were using the term 10 years ago, it's just that because there were no highly visible P2P networks with millions of files you as an individual had less chance of being affected, so you didn't pay attention . It's funny how sudden personal danger makes people more aware of things that have always been there.
"Hacker sounds so much more criminal than someone circumventing security measures."
If they were deliberately going for spin (rather than mindlessly parroting the word used erroneously as the title of a movie), wouldn't the correct word 'cracker' be better because of its long association with code breaking and opening safes? Poor golf players are also known as hackers, but there's no criminal overtone in that...
"It is the norm in Pakistan to beat your wife and children but that does not make it right."
You're comparing the use of the word pirate to beating your wife and children? And you're accusing the media of loving spin?? At least they don't equate serious personal assault (sometimes murder) with trivial word games.
"Just because it is the norm for the plebs to think of people that infringe copyright as pirate...does not make it correct."
So we shouldn't refer to people who park in handicapped spaces as "selfish jerks" because it makes them sound evil, we should call them "illegally parked" since they aren't depriving anyone of anything permanently? We should call litterers "unauthorized disposers of refuse"? We should call pot-heads "unauthorized self-administers of illicit substances"? I'm just trying to establish where your boundaries are for the use of slang terms, and whether your objections are based on personal politics rather than legal or linguistic correctness.
Tell you what, I'll make you a deal: I'll support your call to cease the use of the word 'pirate', if you agree that the term 'copying over a network' is correct and that 'file sharing' is nothing but euphemistic spin (look up the definition of 'share': it mentions 'apportion', 'divide', 'have part stake in', and others, but nowhere does it mention 'produce an exact duplicate').
Blank until
Does this mean that if, for example, I say something on the Internet critical of Islam, I can be extradited to Saudi Arabia? The only law thay should apply should be the law of the person's domicile, which, in this case, is Australia.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Hey go and ask a Russian about cleaning up ww2, the US did lots of good but Russia did most of it.
CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
Dude. A lot of us care what the rest think about. It's just that a lot of us don't have deep enough pocket to tell politicians what we want them to do. That and there're not enough smart people to vote for good candidates.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
... wow... that was really f**ked up...
... unbelievable...
So basically, I could just commit a murder, MAKE SURE I leave a shitload of evidence behind, and I'll get acquitted in Australia?
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
I really don't see a problem with making prisoners work, as long as they aren't pushed beyond reasonable hours. They're being fed and housed, and usually given access to television and a small library. Making them do something in return is generally seen as part of the rehabilitation process.
please repeat after me: copying is not theft.
for theft, i must take something from you, and you must no longer have it. if i steal your CD, that's theft. if i copy your CD, that's not theft. it might be illegal in some countries (not in Canada where i live) but it is not theft.
"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
-- U.S. Supreme Court, Dowling vs. United States
"Disobeying is Disobeying" is, I believe, the reasoning in their heads. Crime, to them, no matter how small, is like disobeying your dad. Doesn't matter how much or how little (except when the punishment comes around), what dad says is what goes. Period. No backtalk.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Hey, Regardless of what he did or did not do we should all stand behind him. Offer our support and I do not mean provide money. It is not my decision to decide if his actions were illegal. But being extradited for this is ridiculous, where does it end now ? As we are part of the IT community we should spread the word and start boycotting American products and revenue streams. Michael.
Linux: For those able to think out side of a window
About five years ago or so, there was a reduced-type (but unabridged) edition of the 20-volume OED for only (!) $300. I assume it's still being produced.
How many letters are on a Pirates Keyboard? Two. Escape, and RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
What about extraditing public school children who have photos posted on the internet of them wearing crosses while in school to France (a stretch). Or maybe to Iran (slightly less of a stretch, I think)? I don't think as many people will care about Hefner being sent to Saudi Arabia for porn as will care about their children being extradited over religion.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
>-you are not a lawyer.
You are right, I am not a lawyer.
>you obviously haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
I have some clue, but since IANAL, I can certainly be wrong. Even a lawyer can be wrong though.
>kindly STFU before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
I have been making a fool of myself for as long as I can remember, why stop now?
>that is all.
You are impolite. Also, I note that you are posting as AC, you do not rebut/correct what I have said, just claim it is incorrect. How is this helpful?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
What is really surprising is that his lawyer was not able to block extradition based upon the current US foreigner laws i.e. under current US law he is entitled to nothing and while within the US he is treated as a NON-CITIZEN (specifically a citizen of no country at all), not entitled to any legal representation, not entitled to any legal protections, basically at the mercy of the US government and losing all of his rights and protections as a Australian citizen as soon as he enters the United States (as the United States has utterly failed to provide for legal protection for citizens of any country via treaty when they implemented the foreigner laws). Well I guess you get the legal representation you pay for, perhaps he needs a more astute lawyer.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
"as if the world needed another reason - boycott anything and everything American, if you don't want to boycott, then just refuse to pay for it. Just say no to The Land of Lies and The Home of Hypocrisy." Or better yet, just continue to steal their products. That way you both deprive American corporations of any return on investment AND get free stuff.
Bill Gates [the chief software architect of Microsoft Corporation] ... decides to add features to Windows and Word so that you choose to use them over Linux and Open Office.
I'll become satisfied when one of the features that Mr. Gates's team adds to Microsoft Word is a well-documented default save format. It's not the features; it's the lack of features.
He and his kind are providing cracked replacement software for those products made by companies *REQUIRING* activation that almost never works.
Mr. Griffiths, you are our hero in disguise!!