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?!
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
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
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.
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.
And let's describe Attila the Hun as someone with "an active, outdoor lifestyle."
--George Carlin
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
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. --
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...
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
Technically, copyright infringement isn't theft.
But copyright infringement is just as illegal.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Innocent until proved guilty doesn't exist anymore.
Nodays someone calls either terrorist or copywrite infringer and you're guilty no matter what.
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
And my (Australian) government is happy to hand people over to the Americans who have broken no laws in Australia
What this guy did was breaking the law in Australia - you guys have copyright laws too - The issue here is not whether or not he broke the law, but why he's been extradited for such a relatively minor crime.
I can accept this guy is guilty and that warezers on this sort of scale are the kind of people the law should be going after, but I can't for the life of me see why America can't let the guy be tried under Australian law for crimes he committed while in Australia. That's the issue under scrutiny here, not whether or not he broke the law.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
You're equating a copyright violation to an act of war.
You work for the RIAA/MPAA/BSA right?
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."
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?
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
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.
"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.
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