Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warez Suspect To Be Extradited, After All

Comments Filter:
  • Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Izago909 (637084) * <tauisgod@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:33AM (#10174173)
    Does everyone remember the large protests over the last couple decades against what people perceived as the formation of a one world government? They are usually based in the U.S. and targeted at the WTO, World Bank, and U.N. I guess the Christian bible has a couple verses people interpret to mean "no one world government". Who would have thought it would be the U.S. that became the world government? I say all of us should go out tomorrow and protest our government. Also, before I get a whole bunch of conservatives calling me a troll and arguing that patriotism is defined as agreeing with the government, Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
    • Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Interesting)

      by over_exposed (623791) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:38AM (#10174203) Homepage
      Well said... I agree completely with your statements, but add this into the pot. Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires? Now you can argue about the defenition of crime in relation to warez until you're blue in the face, but I'm not going to tread there...
      • Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Veridium (752431) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:44AM (#10174231) Homepage
        Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires?

        I'm not going to touch the definition of crime bit with regards to warez, but I think if you commit a crime, you should be tried by the laws of the country you were in at the time you commited it.
        • Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Interesting)

          by mcrbids (148650) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:10AM (#10174373) Journal
          Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires?

          Probably the most-quoted phrase in this thread... a true troll if ever I saw one. That said, I'm biting...

          Let's say you have a nice, WWII bomb shell. It might still be active, it might not. But, it's decorated your grand-uncle's porch for 30-some-odd years. Grand uncle dies, and you get it.

          You sell it on EBay. Now, it's not illegal to own this shell in the US.

          Suddenly, somebody from France extradites you for attempting to sell "military munitions to civil personnel". But wait a minute... it's not illegal to own that in the US! But, it is/was being sold to people IN FRANCE!

          The "Intarweb thingar" had made a mess of the legal system in many respects - with courts and jurisdictions the world over scrambling to remain relevant.

          In the above cases, many courts have chosen to construe the act of selling happening whereever the sale "took place" - in other words, where the customer is.

          So, are you ready to defend yourself in a French court?
          • by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @06:17AM (#10175474) Journal
            Suddenly, somebody from France extradites you for attempting to sell "military munitions to civil personnel". But wait a minute... it's not illegal to own that in the US! But, it is/was being sold to people IN FRANCE!
            Most extradition treaties work like this: you can only be extradited for things that are illegal in both countries. My country's treaty with the US has some additional provisions, such as exclusion of stuff that is punished much harder in the US, and exemption of criminals who are likely to face the death penalty in the US. These treaties work like this for the situation you brought up.

            Unless I miss my guess, warezing (sp) is a crime in Australia as well, and this guy can be extradited.
      • Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)

        by myowntrueself (607117) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:53AM (#10174276)
        "Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires?"

        Sure. So an Brit who offends Robert Mugabe, apparently an offence in Zimbabwe, should be extradited to stand trial in Harare.

        Right.

        Under the UN charter, a person cannot be tried for an act which was not illegal at the time and place it was committed.

        But then we are talking about the USA (in the article) and we all know how important respect for UN conventions and international treaties are for America...

        • Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Loadmaster (720754) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:15AM (#10174405) Homepage
          Sure. So an Brit who offends Robert Mugabe, apparently an offence in Zimbabwe, should be extradited to stand trial in Harare.

          Mugabe can try, but Britain would never allow it. Just like France refuses to extradite the Unicorn Killer. In this case, the U.S. asked Australia to extradite him. They complied. An Australian court said send him to America. Seems like the U.S. respected their laws pretty well.
          • Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)

            by antic (29198) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @03:55AM (#10175059)

            Can I just expand on that sentence of yours:

            "In this case, the U.S. (a country of 200+ million people currently exerting its military dominance in 2 other countries) asked Australia (a country of 20 million people and comparably little world impact) to extradite him."

            I appreciate your argument, but it's becoming less simple to turn down requests from the US.
            • Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Wudbaer (48473) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @05:18AM (#10175306) Homepage
              But what would the US have done if they had not extradited him ? Being pissed off ? Likely. Invaded ? Hardly. Economic sanctions ? Not really.
              • Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Interesting)

                by cozziewozzie (344246) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @06:26AM (#10175494)
                You are underestimating the role of the US in the world. Currently many Eastern European countries are being coerced into signing a non-extradition treaty with the US. The treaty goes like this:

                You sign that you will never hand over an American citizen for whatever reason, or whatever crime to anyone other than the US. You, on the other hand, get to extradite your own citizens whenever anyone asks. Bosnia and Romania have already signed. Do you know why?

                If Americans leave Bosnia, there will likely be another genocide just like during the 92-95 war.
                • Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by DNS-and-BIND (461968)
                  Wait - I thought American military interventions abroad were a BAD thing. Are you saying that something good happened?

                  Where's the oil in Bosnia?

                  • Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Interesting)

                    by cozziewozzie (344246)
                    Oh, don't get me wrong, this intervention was a good thing, and it should have happened much much earlier.. The difference is that it happened at the plea of the Bosnian government, and was not an invasion based on some fishy 'evidence' of weapons of mass destruction.
                • Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Wudbaer (48473)
                  Usually it's a tit-for-tat. Bosnia gets protection by US troops, which costs the US shitloads of money and weakens the already stretched resources of the US military. Romania might get something else out for them. Money ? Special status for doing trade ? Large US bases ?

                  If those nations trade their national sovereignity for bribes by the US it's their loss. But I don't think that they are forced by the US with dark and ominous threats as the grand parent insinuated without having considerable advantages fr
                • Currently many Eastern European countries are being coerced into signing a non-extradition treaty with the US.

                  How are they being coerced? Just curious.

                  If Americans leave Bosnia, there will likely be another genocide just like during the 92-95 war.

                  Nonsense! The UN will prevent that, just like it is preventing genocide from occuring in the Sudan!.

                  Oh, wait....

        • Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ddavis539 (691782) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:52AM (#10174576)
          It's very disturbing that a computer connection is now legally equivalent to being physically present in order to commit a crime.

          If I'm logged into my banks computer to review my account while it's being robbed, am I an accessory to the crime?

          If I discuss through e-mail religion, politics, etc... with a citizen of another country which is deemed critical or violates some law in China for example, could the fact that my mail server connects to a mail server located in China become equivalent to me actually going to China to speak against the government?

          This new precedent combined with the musings of Orrin Hatch make for a pretty scary future.

          Combine this with IP spoofing and a whole new dimension to identity theft and it's consequences is born.

          On the upside, I know a couple of politicians who could be extradited somewhere, I'm sure they've done something that's illegal in another country.
      • Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Informative)

        by Izago909 (637084) *
        You should read the first thread of the original artice.

        http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100421&cid =8561985 [slashdot.org]

        You'd better believe that people would protest the extradition of a U.S. citizen to the Saudi's for criticizing Islam.
      • This is why... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Numen (244707)
        Why?... lets try a scenario and see how you feel about it.

        Your 18 year old daughter (or sister) has been priating software amongst his friends in college to make spare cash.

        Some of the software he's pirating it produced in the UK, and the UK want to extradite him to stand trial there.

        How do you feel about it now?
      • Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)

        by steve_bryan (2671) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @03:41AM (#10175020)
        Has everyone already forgotten the fatwah that was issued for Salman Rushdie for "committing a crime" in one country while residing in another? His crime was writing a book considered impious ("The Satanic Verses") and his sentence was death.

        So if US law can be applied world wide why not Islamic law? In the past I thought most US policy makers showed proper caution about allowing too much authority that could supercede national sovereignty. The principle is much more important than the specifics. So it is not bad enough that people who have government granted monopolies are given authority over what technology is allowed, now they are allowed to set precedents that could undermine national sovereignty? What a looming nightmare.
    • Re:Hello NWO (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Who would have thought it would be the U.S. that became the world government?

      Erm, probably just about everyone *outside* the U.S?
    • by drsmithy (35869) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .yhtimsrd.> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:04AM (#10174340)
      Who would have thought it would be the U.S. that became the world government?

      Been a bit out of touch for the last hundred-odd years, have you ?

      • Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pjt33 (739471)
        I think you probably mean 40-odd years. 60 years ago the British Empire still covered something like a third of the world's land surface: it was in the 1960s that it really broke up.
  • ...doesnt look good (Score:5, Informative)

    by crazyray (776321) * on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:36AM (#10174183)
    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 [pcworld.com]
    • by flakac (307921) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:24AM (#10174454)
      "Unfortunately, he will probably be convicted..."

      Why "unfortunately"? Sidestepping the usual arguments based on the communist manifesto ("information wants to be free"), look at it from another angle.

      If the man broke the law, he should face the consequences. He broke into a computer in the USA, so he should be tried there. If it was your home computer that he broke into, you'd be screaming bloody murder, but he broke into a campus system, which somehow makes him a "hero".

      He illegally distributed stolen software via this computer in the USA, so he should be tried there.
  • Nigerians (Score:5, Funny)

    by TibbonZero (571809) <Tibbon AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:37AM (#10174194) Homepage Journal
    Now if we could only figure out a way to extradite the Nigerian Spammers...
    • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:15AM (#10174400) Homepage Journal
      Attention,

      My name is Mr Momartin, I am the operational manager in spam prosecution section in charge of extradition and foreign relation of Nigerian Government. I am writing in respect of a Nigerian spammer who was caught on 25TH JULY,2004. There is an account opened in a bank here in Nigeria where he has stashed all of his ill-gotten funds and we need the cash to buy him a plane ticket to USA. Unfortunately, the account has no other beneficiary and until we caught the spammer he was the manager of a vast fraud scheme. The total amount involved is $26,000,000.00 USD.[Twenty Six million United States Dollar ]. We wish to start the first transfer with $6,000,000.00[Six million] and open successful transaction without any disappointment from your side,we shall re-apply for the transfer of the remaining balance to your account. Please help us fight email fraud and help us to extradite said criminal to the USA!

      Yours truly, Mr Momartin.
  • by base3 (539820) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:38AM (#10174198)
    . . . for copyright "crimes," surely we can force China and Korea to turn over their spam-supporting admins, right? I'd even settle for them being tried at the Hague, so long as the death penalty were on the table.
  • Operation Buccaneer (Score:5, Informative)

    by crazyray (776321) * on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:38AM (#10174200)
    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 [usdoj.gov]
  • by John_Allen_Mohammed (811050) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:38AM (#10174201)
    U.S. law now supersedes the written laws of all sovereign nations? Why should I bother voting at all, if the ultimate authority lays in the hands of arrogant foreigners that do not represent me....
    • by damiangerous (218679) <1ndt7174ekq80001@sneakemail.com> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:42AM (#10174224)
      U.S. law now supersedes the written laws of all sovereign nations?

      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.

      • by drsmithy (35869) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .yhtimsrd.> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:08AM (#10174360)
        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.

        • by lgftsa (617184) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @02:19AM (#10174696)
          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.....
      • Granted - superficially, it's not the US that's doing something bizarre here, but Australia.

        Of course the next question is what sort of pressure the US exerts on Austrialia to get de facto legal jurisdiction there, and whether it's consistent with democratic self-rule Down Under. Somehow I doubt Australia would do the same favor for its less "influential" fellow nations.

        • Of course the next question is what sort of pressure the US exerts on Austrialia to get de facto legal jurisdiction there, and whether it's consistent with democratic self-rule Down Under. Somehow I doubt Australia would do the same favor for its less "influential" fellow nations.

          Bugger that. We don't even complain when the US arranges to have our civilians kidnapped and held incommunicado in another foreign country and without trial for three years. Even if they've not committed a crime in that count

    • Well, if you became an arrogant foreigner you could help keep the rest of us from fucking things up.
  • by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:39AM (#10174207)
    What next? Will I be extradited for having had sex with a 16-year-old (illegal in the US)? How about drinking alcohol in public, which is illegal in many countries (Saudi Arabia for instance), or hell - buying alcohol at the tender age of 15 (illegal in the US)? How about having had sex before I was 18 (also illegal in the US)? Having had sex outside of marriage (probably illegal in Iran)? Having had anal sex while there was a third party in the sexual congress (illegal in the UK).

    I'm sure I've done SOMETHING that is perfectly legal where I live, that would be sentenced very harshly in other countries. Of course the things I just mentioned are things that "hurt" other people as opposed to the almighty profit of US coorporations, so I suppose that I won't be extradited anytime soon.
    • I'm not trying to detract from your point, but about having sex with a 16 year old or having sex before you were 18 being illegal in the United States, neither of those are really true. The age of consent in most states is 16. There are a few in which it is 18 (and a few where it's lower) but 16 is the average. Furthermore, in the majority of states the law is smart enough to add an exception for people in close age, i.e. in many states the age of consent is 16, or two years younger than you are, so if you
    • by terrymaster69 (792830) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:51AM (#10174267)
      Will I be extradited for having had sex with a 16-year-old (illegal in the US)?

      You can be if you did in the US then left the country - depends on the situation and the extradition treaty of the country you fled to.

      The idea is that he was committing crimes inside the United States - the fact that he resides in Australia means he needs to be extradited.
    • by myowntrueself (607117) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:55AM (#10174290)
      "Will I be extradited for having had sex with a 16-year-old (illegal in the US)? How about drinking alcohol in public, which is illegal in many countries (Saudi Arabia for instance), or hell - buying alcohol at the tender age of 15 (illegal in the US)? How about having had sex before I was 18 (also illegal in the US)? Having had sex outside of marriage (probably illegal in Iran)? Having had anal sex while there was a third party in the sexual congress (illegal in the UK)."

      I don't know about extradition, but theres *definitely* room for a great reality TV show in there!
    • by raisedbyrobots (808710) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:12AM (#10174388)
      Age of consent is determined by state law, not federal law, so you'll have to wait for the individual states to start extradicting foreigners.

      On the otherhand, if you were just trying to point out how you've had sex, then point taken.

    • The answer to your questions is no. Here's why:

      First off, for any of this to happen, there needs to be an extradition treaty between the countries. This means that they mutually agree on the things for which a person can and cannot be extradited to stand trial. Most of the nations you are talking about the US (and likely whatever nation you reside in) does NOT have an extradition treaty with. Even so, most of these aren't offences allowed for extradition under treaties.

      So, even in the event that the offen
    • What next? Will I be extradited for having had sex with a 16-year-old (illegal in the US)? How about drinking alcohol in public, which is illegal in many countries (Saudi Arabia for instance), or hell - buying alcohol at the tender age of 15 (illegal in the US)? How about having had sex before I was 18 (also illegal in the US)? Having had sex outside of marriage (probably illegal in Iran)? Having had anal sex while there was a third party in the sexual congress (illegal in the UK).

      Dude, that was an AWESOME weekend.
  • by ryg0r (699756) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:45AM (#10174238)
    Arrrg....

    Tis a sad day when ye fellow pirate BanDiDo, now has t' be keel-hauled by these land lubbers, arrrg. And so close to the day too arrgg. Avast ye!

    http://www.talklikeapirate.com/ [talklikeapirate.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:49AM (#10174252)
    . . . this would probably been settled by a booting.

    ~~~

  • by Dzimas (547818) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:52AM (#10174272)
    Sooner or later, the backlash against the USA will be enormous. And it will be unplesant to behold. After all, most of the world's manufacturing ain't done there... I certainly can't think of one DVD player, TV set, MP3 player (iPod included) that is made in the US. Their cars aren't the best (Dodge Neon, anyone). All that's left is a few billion dollars of entertainment industry (I'm ignoring their incredibly advanced arms industry for a sec...), and if that falls... whew. No Britney, no Ben Stiller, no ER, and no money to fund the next round of incredibly dangerous Plutonium Nyborg-tipped missiles. And, what do you know, the Chinese ones will be 10x more accurate, 100x cheaper, and available in a variety of pastels.
  • Sad pirate. (Score:5, Funny)

    by iamdrscience (541136) <michaelmtripp@gm ... om minus painter> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:54AM (#10174284) Homepage
    Yarrr... 'tis sad to be seein one o' me own kind be taken in. But that's one o' the hazards of the swashbucklin' life. This swig o' rum be for you, lad!
  • Very nasty precedent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dbIII (701233) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:56AM (#10174293)
    Extradition on copyright law, by the nation that keeps changing their copyright law to protect profits from Mickey Mouse! This leaves things open for ludicrous actions like prosecuting people in the project Gutenberg project outside the USA for putting things online which are decades out of copyright in their own countries.

    Some time ago in Australia there was a spectacular fraudster that went to Spain to escape justice - a decade of extradition attempts got nowhere.

    In my opinion, the members of the MPAA and other copyright lobbyists in the USA should have the decency to pay tax since they are consuming so much of the governments resources on this. All those big movies barely break even on paper - the IRS is expected to beleive that all of Hollywood is run as some sort of charity to the moviegoing public.

  • Criminals are stupid (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Neo-Rio-101 (700494) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @12:59AM (#10174303)
    I would have thought that these pirates encrypt their fileservers, so that even if their hardware gets confiscated.... the hard disks all appear to be blank.

    I mean, they're so busy breaking other people's protections..... sheesh, you would have thought that they'd employ some themselves.

    I guess criminals really are stupid.
  • Google-osity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iamdrscience (541136) <michaelmtripp@gm ... om minus painter> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:04AM (#10174338) Homepage
    Search Google for " wares [google.com]". It comes up saying "Did you mean: warez".

    Hehe, my brother pointed that one out to me.
  • by chrispyman (710460) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:06AM (#10174350)
    Since it's quite likely that this guy was violating Australian copyright laws, though probably more leanant than any US ones, why does the US feel the need to punish him HERE??? Perhaps the more disturbing issue is will this case define the internet's legal jurisdiction to be that of the United States thus ignoring the world wide scope of the internet's audience?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:13AM (#10174389)
    Why are most of the posts here negatively directed at the US? After all, it was Austrailia that agreed to extradite this guy. Shouln't the negativity be directed there instead?
  • Oh no (Score:4, Funny)

    by CrypticSpawn (719164) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:13AM (#10174390)
    now I am going to be extradited to Singapore to be caned because I spit out my gum on U.S. soil!!! I am glad they don't know about my grafitti back in the day, I just might be double canned...
    • Re:Oh no (Score:3, Informative)

      by the_riaa (669835)
      No, dumbass. Extradition is for when you commit a crime in one country [where the act is illegal], and either flee or reside in another country [where the act may or may not be illegal]. Spitting out gum is illegal in Singapore, but is not illegal in the United States. So if you spit out your gum in the U.S. nobody cares - you're just an asshole [find a trashcan!]. If you did it in Singapore [again, where the act is illegal] AND FLED THE COUNTRY [or if you somehow were able to spit your gun out from your ho
  • US v Griffiths (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:16AM (#10174410)
    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.
  • by JohnA (131062) <johnanderson&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:18AM (#10174420) Homepage
    I think if we Americans realized the power held by our non-elected, non-accountable "trade representatives", we would be absolutely appalled.

    America's Free Trade representatives require so many concessions from foreign governments for the pleasure of a "free trade" agreement with the United States.

    These government employees have a mandate to spread U.S. style laws across the world. The cost is, of course, the loss of any individuality possessed by participating states.

    Regardless of your feelings about the current administration, you should closely scrutinize the actions of some of the most powerful people in the administrative branch... people who have no accountability or oversight.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:20AM (#10174431)
    The reason this guy is under so much fire is simple: He violated copyright in a massive way ("US$50 million" worth) and corporations want to send a message that this is not okay. They're right: Australia respects US copyright law, and has extradiction treaties that can theoretically, and in this case demonstrably, be brought to bear on an offender.
    So my question is, what country does not? Surely there is a country which simply doesn't care about western copyright, and does not have a system of laws and treaties under which the copyright of another country can cause extradition.
    Now, here is the key to satiating my relentless craving for bits and bytes: the violation of copyright exists in the REPRODUCTION or DISTRIBUTION of material protected against such acts except where authorized. It says nothing about owning copyright materials.

    Have you noticed that it doesn't matter how many pirate DVD's or videos you have, it is the houses with a thousand BURNERS churning out the pirate goods that get raided? THIS IS THE LAW.

    So, I figure I can go to a government in which 100% of American bits and bytes are in the public domain, pay the government-owned publishing house a modest fee, and return with 100,000 pages of everything I'd ever want to read, for example, for pennies on the gram-square-meter.

    This is the same as when I buy a jazz CD from 1942 sources that in France is in the public domain. (As I understand it.)

    The consumer is NOT LIABLE.

    Okay, comments?
    • So, I figure I can go to a government in which 100% of American bits and bytes are in the public domain, pay the government-owned publishing house a modest fee, and return with 100,000 pages of everything I'd ever want to read

      Not likely legal (depends on your jurisdiction).
      I live in the UK (which has fairly liberal copyright regs/enforcement by US standards) and carried out research last year into doing reproduction and distribution of old materials (like, decades old, but still not PD in the UK) in an Af

  • by ortcutt (711694) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:23AM (#10174446)
    Given the dangerous conditions in US Prisons, it's surprising that civilized countries are still willing to extradite people here.
  • Bugger. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SanGrail (472847) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:25AM (#10174461)
    Poor bastard.

    I mean, he was a pathetic warez hacker, but I wouldn't want anyone to have to face the US 'justice' system.

    I've had several friends who had utterly insane things happen to them in America, it's made me paranoid enough that I wouldn't even want to stop over there. I know there's plenty of places, people, and festivals I'd like to visit in America, so it can't be that bad - but it seems like foreigners, even english speaking, western world, acceptably 'caucasian' foreigners, often get treated like shit, especially by the authorities. Or maybe that's normal. I don't know.
    I don't want to find out.
  • by dtfinch (661405) * on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:25AM (#10174462) Journal
    I'll be extradited from the US to China for violating their censorship laws.
  • by flacco (324089) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:26AM (#10174468)
    the potential penalty is.

    as RMS succinctly put it at a presentation i attended several months ago: in the US, you can now be sent to prison to be raped for sharing software.

    this fact short-circuits any rational discussion one might have about jurisdiction, extradition, etc.

  • by ortcutt (711694) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @01:52AM (#10174579)
    Let's all hope that Australian Labor Party wins the coming election and kicks out this lap-dog Howard government.
  • by mefus (34481) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @02:15AM (#10174675) Journal
    "Your Rights Online" should be "Your Rights On the Line"
  • Hicks and Habib (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ozmanjusri (601766) <[aussie_bob] [at] [hotmail.com]> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @02:46AM (#10174795) Journal
    It seems somewhat ironic that the US is so keen to extradite this fellow for what we hope is a fair trial, but are not prepared to return David Hicks or Mamdouh Habib to Autralia or to try them in a civilian court.
  • by sofar (317980) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @03:06AM (#10174872) Homepage

    No we can finallay extradite all those US-based spammers and sue them to sh*t from europe, africa and asia!!!!
  • by mattgorle (807823) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @04:22AM (#10175146) Homepage

    Why not extradite and imprison the entire city of Amsterdam? Remember to pay attention to coffee houses.

  • Empires are such (Score:4, Informative)

    by quadormortis (811290) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @04:52AM (#10175237)
    It is clear: australia has given up one of the basic pillar of its sovereignity: the ultimate right of judgment on its territory. That was the basic right of kings and the basic of right of any form of state afterwards. Obviously, US tries to wash away a very important thing: the borders of the countries and thus the territories of sovereignity by referring to the Internet. It might look as a small thing, but you must consider that territory of sovereignity holds a very special importace and it is a very sensitive area. The ultimate power over a territory is the basic of all rules and laws (even back in the nature) Unfortunately it is obvious that US is doing this not for making the world a better place and making a sci-fi dream true, but for extending its power (and its companies' power) to other countries. I am not that suprised, rather sorrowful. A dream of the XX. century indepedent, soveriegn and equal nations has died. The UN failed. The history continues as it used to be for millenia. It is a bit ironic to see how unprepared your "western world" was to the simple fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only remaining superpower will behave exactly as superpowers tend to behave: they have the tendency to rule as much of the world as possible and claim as much of others' sovereignty as possible. Here in eastern europe we have seen the soviet (russian) arrogance and how our governments behaved like pet dogs of the soviet communist party (and their secretery general). And you might think it was a terrible dictatorship here. Not as bad as you might think. Just as you might expect from a "colony" of a big empire. You are not allowed to question the empire: that's all. US didn't behave like that at that time, because of PR reasons. At that time the western world had to show that they system is inherently better than the soviet communist crap. And it was at that time. How much we admired the freedom of the western world. And the idea of the _really_ free nations. Now the communists have gone. There is no real danger of (lucrative) communist ideology to conquer the world. Now your western system and the western superpower can start to show its real color. The saddest thing is that it is not necessary evil: it it just the logic of empires. It seems that - unfortunately - the democratic-capitalist western system is not inherently protected against bad governments and arrogant empires. It's just suprising to see how surprised you are that there is nothing new in history. Arrogant, militant governments and empires turn up from time to time to annouce "pax romana" (and "lex romana" obviously) of the new age. By the way, I am sure this decision was completely "legal". Legal systems are always enforced in a way how the current political systems want them to be used. Formally, they are always perfect.
  • Irony (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sophrosyne (630428) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @08:05AM (#10175793) Homepage
    It's kind-of Ironic that Britain used to send their criminals to Australia... now the United States is taking the criminals for themselves...

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Working...