DoD Warez Leader Faces 10 Years in Jail

An anonymous reader writes "After spending nearly 3 years in a detention center fighting his extradition from Australia, a leader of notorious warez group 'DrinkorDie' was yesterday arraigned before a U.S. District Court to face charges of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and one count of actual criminal copyright infringement. If found guilty he faces 10 years in jail & a $500,000 fine."

Comments

Re:Why the US

[purify0583]

If you steal something belonging to a US business (espically 50 million dollars worth of software FTFA)... The the US law definatly has an interest in the case. The law exists to protect its citizens. If someone from another country stole 50 million dollars from me, I sure as hell epxect my government to track his punk ass down and put him in a US prison no matter where he lived. I wouldnt care if he was British and living in Austrailia or German living in Mexico or whatever. If he commits crimes in the US or against US citizens, the US has the right, moreover, the *obligation* to act to protect its citizens.

Proportionate punishment?

[Nesgar]

One of the functions of imprisonment is to be a deterrent for others. Since the crime is so hard to police, and convictions extremely rare in proportion to its occurrence, the punishment must be relatively harsh to outweigh the small chance of being caught. Not saying that it's just (the relative penalties for murder etc do seem absurdly light by comparison), but there _is_ an argument for imprisonment. Civil litigation and possible bankruptcy is not a significant deterrent for many.

Re:RUN from the MAFIAA!

[ScentCone]

otally disregarding the sovereignty of your own countries laws.

Since you can't tell the difference between:

countries
country's
countries'

I won't expect you to understand the difference between countries that do, and do not, have extradition treaties with each other. If someone in the U.S. were shown to be indictable over some bit of fraud or similar activity victimizing someone in Australia, an Australian prosecutor could proceed with the same sort of approach going the other direction. Australia defends its sovereign rights by entering into those treaties that it finds useful to it. If, in its own interest, Australia wants to have the option of extradicting a criminal into Australia for trial there, they have to have it both ways. If they don't like the notion that one of their citizens breaking another country's laws might subject that person to extradition, then they also cannot expect the same ability when the tables are turned. It couldn't be simpler. Obviously, Australia chose to leave its options open, and after a lengthy proceeding there, came to the same conclusion: the guy should stand trial for he was doing to his U.S. targets.