Warez Suspect To Be Extradited, After All 677
usefool writes "After the U.S.'s first extradition request against an Australian man was denied, the U.S. appealed that decision and has now won the right to try Hew Raymond Griffiths in the U.S."
Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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?
Extradition treaties 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I miss my guess, warezing (sp) is a crime in Australia as well, and this guy can be extradited.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Interesting)
Deriding the French is an old American pastime that we inherited from the English. From Shakespeare to Al Bundy the figure of the effete Frenchman is as engrained in our culture as "the moronity of the typical ugly American" appears to be in yours. Are such stereotypes unfair? Sure, but they also summarize conflicting cultural values that DO exist - notice how nicely the two stereotypes dovetail.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
This really isn't as tricky as lawyers make it out to be. In fact, it's because of BSing lawyers that this is even complex. Who comittted the crime? The person, or the bits? Now, where was the person when he comitted the crime?
Yeah, I know fscking lawyers and politicians will argue otherwise, but really, this is truly the most logical way of looking at it.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)
Likewise, if someone committed bank fraud from Australia against the US, it would hardly be the Australian authorities investigating it, nor would anyone in Australia be damaged-- so it wouldn't exactly be very interesting to Australian prosecutors. Hence we have extradition treaties for this type of thing.
I agree being extradited for being a indiscriminate warez kiddie is a bit extreme.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't you think, in the interest of fairness and justice, that Osama should be tried by an international court instead? Trying him in the US would be like letting the victim of an alleged crime be the judge of the accused.
Likewise, if someone committed bank fraud from Australia against the US, it would hardly be the Australian authorities investigating it, nor would anyone in Australia be damaged-- so it wouldn't exactly be very interesting to Australian prosecutors. Hence we have extradition treaties for this type of thing.
That's a good point. Except I find it hard to believe that Australia's legal system allows for its citizens to commit bank fraud on foreigners. I would think, in the interest of international good will, that they would prosecute people commiting such crimes. It makes more sense, in my opinion, than extradition treaties which ship people to other countries to be tried for crimes not comitted there. Extradition treaties, *IMO*, should be limited towards handing over people wanted for crimes comitted in foreign countries.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
In most cases, the place where victims are located has a lot more incentive and ability to prosecute in most cases. This is why extradition agreements exist. At the same time, extradition agreements are generally purposely limited to 'serious' crimes, to prevent their overuse and miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, criminal violation of copyright has become a much more broadly appliable statute since information technology has come along, and I think that's where the problem is-- the laws are out of date for the problem.
Think of how difficult it would be for Australia to prosecute an Australian for bank fraud committed against citizens in a foreign country, though-- they would have no power to compel witnesses, to subpoena most of the relevent evidence, etc. Not to mention that most prosecutors would care a lot more about cases where their direct constituents are the victim, rather than foreigners. It would be virtually impossible to prove a case under such circumstances.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
And how would an international court, made up of say, France, Libya, China, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada and Greece, be necessarily so much more impartial? I am certainly no Bushite, but even I, as a New Yorker who lived through 9/11, would find the idea of an international court to try bin Laden patently offensive. He committed a crime against me, in my territory and I deserve to have him tried in a court that follows my laws. The crime was committed here, and he should be tried here. Victims have rights too, you know, and that's why extradition treaties exist in the first place.
Trying him in the US would be like letting the victim of an alleged crime be the judge of the accused.
No, because he would not be tried for attacking the United States and he would not be judged by the American people - he would be tried for the murder of almost 3,000 people in the United States, and he would be judged by trained and experienced legal professionals just like every other case in this country.
Obviously, as in any other case, the judge would have to have had no personal involvement in the attacks. It's a judge's duty by law to be impartial; now, not all of them are, but I'd trust a US federal judge any day of the week over any international court, which these days would almost necessarily be comprised primarily of countries not friendly to us and in many cases openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Interesting)
which these days would almost necessarily be comprised primarily of countries not friendly to us and in many cases openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause.
This is unfortunatly the reality the US faces today, and whilst I disagee that the French would go soft on OBL if we managed to get our hands on him (It's just Iraq we object to, which is another war entirly) we have to admit that a lot of countries don't hold the US in their hearts atm.
Now, back to the question, in a court of law, everyone (prosecution and defense asside) have to be independant for the accused to have a fair trile. This counts just as much for an international court of law, as for a US one.
The problem is this: For OBL's crimes, a jury trial would be de riggeur (unless you have military tribunerals for everything by then). How do you expect to find 12 Americans who would be able to cast an unbiasd opinion on 9/11
It would be much easier to find neutral countries
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
Well you've already judged him guilty so that's pretty much that.
And how many people judged Saddam Hussein guilty of having WMD?
Obviously, as in any other case, the judge would have to have had no personal involvement in the attacks. It's a judge's duty by law to be impartial
Yeah, I'm sure any given federal US judge is going to be impartial to Bin Laden. We would breed even more hatred if we attempted to try him in this country. It would be better if he was killed in a fight.
over any international court, which these days would almost necessarily be comprised primarily of countries not friendly to us and in many cases openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause.
None of the countries you named here:
France, Libya, China, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada and Greece
are openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause. The one suspect on the list for me would be Libya, but they have made substantial disavowals of terrorism with real deeds. Do you really think France, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada, and Greece are hostile to us? China, maybe.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
That logic?
Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be kidding. When was the last time an American was extradicted for anything, let alone something like this?
That's right, never. On the other hand, when other countries do it to the US, they will whinge and throw their fists about like some cry baby, until they get their way!
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a new form of colonialism? Do we all 6.3 billion have to abide to the law of a mere 300 million?
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us feel that Osama should be tried by an international tribunal, just like Milosevic, for his crimes against humanity.
I like his logic. Bits are information. Otherwise, you'd be able to try every writer wh
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Where's the oil in Bosnia?
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
This is especially bizarre if one considers the quarrels Germany and the US had about Iraq; on one hand people don't want the U
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100421&ci
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)
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)
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)
Erm, probably just about everyone *outside* the U.S?
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Funny)
Been a bit out of touch for the last hundred-odd years, have you ?
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
...doesnt look good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the article, the ring of which he was allegedly a member made use of machines at MIT. If true, although he didn't physically set foot in the US, he did indeed commit crimes in the US. Moreover, copyright is protected in Australia and most other countries and by international agreements. This doesn't seem to be a case of unreasonably applying local laws to someone elsewhere who doesn't know about them or who has no reason to believe that they are relevant to him.
There are some kinds of net activity that present real jurisdictional problems, e.g. kinds of speech (such as insulting Islam) that are legal in some places but not in others, where an activity that is legal in one place spreads to a place where it is illegal by the normal operation of the internet. As far as I can see, this case doesn't fall into that category. If I sit at my terminal in the US and break into a computer in Australia and do mischief there, I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong and I have made an explicit decision to do it. It didn't just happen in the course of the normal operation of the net. Why shouldn't I be subject to prosecution in Australia?
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:3, Informative)
The things he did were illegal in Australia, too. Much as you may wish it were so, this is not a case of him doing something that is perfectly legal in his country, but illegal in the country attempting to extradite him.
So no, this isn't like Sudan coming
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:5, Interesting)
Stop equating the law with ethics. He may or may not have broken law. I don't know the particulars of this case but while I respect copyright law in general the automatic assumption that the the copyright of mass market members of the RIAA should be acknowledged is bogus. See my signature for the reason why.
And before the the RIAA parasites on this forum start targetting me please note that, no, I am not mass copier or distributer but neither I am particularly anti such people either.
IP law is an ass. Until law that represents the interests of all citizens, not just parasite corporations, is enacted, civil disobedience may be entirely appropriate. As the documentary says corporations are sociopaths, making money above all else, and need good law to keep them in check.
The fact that the GPL uses copyright law to implement its goals is irrelevant. Democracies use guns to kill people. In both cases the tools being used are appropriate to the context they are in.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:3, Informative)
Nigerians (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nigerians (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Hey--if we can extradite people . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Operation Buccaneer (Score:5, Informative)
so let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, no. The US had to go to Australia and make their case in an Australian court before an Australian magistrate (and then an Australian appeals court) who ruled based on Australian law.
Re:so let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:so let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.....
Re:so let me get this straight.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:so let me get this straight.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:so let me get this straight.... (Score:2)
Scary ... to say the least! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Scary ... to say the least! (Score:2)
Re:Scary ... to say the least! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.Re:Scary ... to say the least! (Score:5, Informative)
He made himself vulnerable to extradition by obtaining illegal access to computer hardware at an American university, and using that property to perform activity that is illegal both in the USA, and in his home coutry.
I suspect that if he had never made use of an American server, he would probably never have had a real problem. Even then - it sounds like it was a damn close thing and the Australian courts were not in complete agreement on the matter.
To use an example that is the closest parallel I can think of..there are certain medicines that are legal in the USA with a perscription - but illegal to use in Canada.
If I am a US citizen and I willingly and knowingly sell these medicines to Canadian citizens, then I have broken a law in Canada, and likely a trade agreement or treaty between the two countries. There are trade agreements and treaties between Canada and the US that cover how these issues are handled when they arise. Thats what diplomats do dfor a living.
In the interests of protecting trading interests with a foriegn country - you can bet that the US would seriously consider an extradition attempt by Canada in such a case as I have just described. It can be a fine line between medicine and traffiking.
Medium answer to a short question. I hope you found that informative.
Re:Scary ... to say the least! (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know about extradition, but theres *definitely* room for a great reality TV show in there!
Jurisdiction (Score:5, Funny)
On the otherhand, if you were just trying to point out how you've had sex, then point taken.
Well, let me try to explain it (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Scary ... to say the least! (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, that was an AWESOME weekend.
Arrrr, they be hunting the pirates (Score:5, Funny)
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]
If the tables were turned . . . (Score:5, Funny)
~~~
I fear the fall of the Empire. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Empire is history (Score:5, Interesting)
You're American, aren't you?
"Hundreds of countries livelihood is entirely dependent on the ongoing success of our economy."
Mainly Columbia and some sections of Mexico, but mostly where the world has resisted the economic bullying of the US they're getting along fine. Go check out your balance of trade and let us know if it's an import or export deficit.
"Our illness-fighting drugs are the lifeblood of many developing nations."
But a lot more expensive than the unlicensed copies you'll find _actually_ being used in the developing nations.
"Our military inventions save the lives of thousands of lives everytime our soldiers go into the field."
As long as you're American and on that battlefield, then you might be okay, but don't assume that a dearth of statistics on friendly fire and civilian casualties means that there weren't any. You should check out the International Red Cross for some pertinent statistics that suggest that the US has actually caused more collateral damage than is entirely acceptable under the Geneva Convention.
"The list is too long"
List? I thought this was a vague cheerlead.
"Our economic base is slowly deteriorating from the "producer" of worldwide products"
Do give over. You economic base is crippling itself through the balkanisation of intellectual property, the pending threat of doing *something* about the global warming problem now that the administration has come clean, the constant clamouring for cheap goods for a decadent society and the rapidly aging society that will probably kill the US through demands for cheap, available medicare and a consistent quality of life. Democracy has both upsides and downsides; one of the downsides is the people are soft, fat and lazy. After a while a five metre killzone is going to do you no good if you can't afford to buy them.
Now generally you might consider this 'anti-american'. It's actually 'anti-jingoist' because the one thing I cannot stand is someone that tries to promote a view of something that is so far from the truth as to require a backing soundtrack and some inspirational graphics. There's a planet out there that is hungry and starving, and to be frank we don't want America to come in and save us. We want America to sort out your own mess and leave us all alone.
The trouble is that would mean the US couldn't manipulate markets, and that's fundamentally the reason for invading developing countries.
Sad pirate. (Score:5, Funny)
Very nasty precedent (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Criminals are stupid (Score:3, Informative)
Google-osity (Score:5, Interesting)
Hehe, my brother pointed that one out to me.
American law != International law (Score:4, Insightful)
What about Austrailia??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh no (Score:3, Informative)
US v Griffiths (Score:5, Informative)
Re:US v Griffiths (Score:5, Interesting)
Behold the power of "Free Trade" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
what countries DON'T care about western copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:what countries DON'T care about western copyrig (Score:3, Informative)
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
Practically a Human Rights Violation (Score:5, Insightful)
Bugger. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Next thing you know (Score:5, Funny)
what's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Pray for a Labor Victory (Score:5, Interesting)
Section Name Change Suggestion (Score:5, Funny)
Hicks and Habib (Score:5, Insightful)
what a great victory! (Score:3, Insightful)
No we can finallay extradite all those US-based spammers and sue them to sh*t from europe, africa and asia!!!!
To take this to its logical conclusion (Score:3, Funny)
Why not extradite and imprison the entire city of Amsterdam? Remember to pay attention to coffee houses.
Empires are such (Score:4, Informative)
Irony (Score:3, Funny)
Re:the joys of a wired world (Score:4, Insightful)
Under what laws? U.S. Laws? EU laws? Does the hague have to follow U.S. precedents? Do U.S. courts then in turn have to follow hague precedents that interpret U.S. laws? Are judges in the hague then subject to the same oversight as U.S. judges if their rulings on U.S. laws are abusive/incorrect, etc? Or at the least, can the U.S. congress pass a law to overturn a hague ruling? Or what if the hague ruling interprets U.S. Constitutional law? Are U.S. courts then bound by the hague-based interpretation of their constitution?
I'm not trying to flame ya. I'm just trying to imagine the unbelievable super-jumbo supreme sized can of worms you just described in one line....
Re:the joys of a wired world (Score:5, Informative)
Software Guerilla Warfare (Score:3, Informative)
Griffiths has been charged in the US with conspiracy to infringe copyright and copyright infringement, for reproducing without authority and distributing software protected by copyright on the internet. The US alleges that Griffiths was the ringleader of an internet group called DrinkorDie which allegedly worked from a computer network at Boston's Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Griffiths helped to control access to the network, though it is not al
Re:the joys of a wired world (Score:4, Insightful)
> the trigger in that country. This same thing can apply to the internet.
But then the question remains: WHERE is an internet crime committed?
a) in country where the content was created and/or hosted? (here: australia)
or
b) in the country where the content is received and viewed? (here: US, among others)
If you go with b), one could arbitrarily choose any country at wish. Clever
delinquents could even go one step further:
1) commit horrible internet crime
2) choose country with weak and light law
3) let someone from this country view content
4) get prosecuted for it in that country
5) dont get prosecuted in any other country (nor home country, nor US) anymore,
because one cant be prosecuted twice for the same crime
-> get away cheap with horrible internet crime
Re:the joys of a wired world (Score:3, Interesting)
Extradition should only be used for really serious offenses -- like software piracy.
Of course, the U.S. refused extradition of Kissinger for war crimes.
Looks like France may request extradition of Cheney for screwing not just the U.S. taxpayer but the rest of the world as well with the Halliburten money funnel. Of course, that will be denied as well.
Maybe software pirates need lobbyists?
Re:A Worst Case Scenario (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Extradition (Score:3, Interesting)
Very unlikely.
The Australian judiciary is independant enough to really piss off the Australian government - so I doubt this is the case. We are talking about a government of which members fabricated charges of homosexual pedaphillia in a government car against a supreme court judge that they didn't like - claims which fell apart very
Re:Your Rights Online and Offline (Score:3, Insightful)
The only real exception is the EUROPEAN UNION, which has laws that govern parts or ALL 25 MEMBER STATES. The rest of the international laws can be erased with a pencil if anyone wants to.