Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government United States News Your Rights Online

DrinkOrDie Warez Trader to be Extradited to U.S. 686

Posted by timothy from the innocent-like-a-newborn-baby dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DrinkOrDie Warez Trader to be Extradited to U.S. More

DrinkOrDie Warez Trader to be Extradited to U.S.

Comments Filter:

  • According to US Customs (Score:5, Funny)

    by windowpain ( 211052 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:06AM (#11917923) Journal
    "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.

    • Re:According to US Customs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:13AM (#11917952)
      You have to love how they demonize everyone by using labels like "gang of internet pirates". Let's use a little less hyperbole and say "copyright infringement groups" - which is far more accurate and descriptive.

      Also, I can see extradition for somethin glike murder or rape - but copyright infringement?!
      • And instead of "handicapped people," let's use a little less hyperbole and say "specially enabled people."

      • Re:According to US Customs (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Well, it's not like the guy was a casual copier. He was part of an organization that infringed the copyrights of hundreds if not thousands (or more) software titles. You make it sound like he only copied a few games or something when in reality he was providing copies of hundreds or thousands of titles to basically anybody who could find them. Granted this is not even close to murder, but the software companies potentially lost millions of dollars. I said potentially, so don't bother playing semantics.

        • Re:According to US Customs (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Zemran ( 3101 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @06:00AM (#11918555) Homepage Journal
          [ Well, it's not like the guy was a casual copier. ]

          and it is not like he has been convicted yet either so he is an innocent man. He was not in the US so I for one am shocked that his own country would throw him to the wolves rather than deal with it themselves. If he has broken the law then he should face that in the country where he broke the law. I am severely disapointed with Oz over this one. I thought they had more balls than to be bullied like this.
          • This could set an interesting precendent for internet gambling sites. They have generally claimed what they do is legal since the transactions occur on servers outside the US, where US law does not apply. The US government claims it is illegal because the gambler is in the US when he makes his bets, so US law does apply.

            But here the government is agreeing in principal with the internet gambling sites, that the law in the place where the servers are located trumps the law where the person supposedly vio

        • Semantics (Score:4, Informative)

          by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @10:59AM (#11919726)
          I said potentially, so don't bother playing semantics.

          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.

      • Also, I can see extradition for somethin glike murder or rape - but copyright infringement?!

        Murder, yes. Rape, no. Roman Polanski has been in France for over 20 years.

    • "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.

      Obviously, if they were real pirates, they would have their own boat and stay in International waters.

  • Someone explain... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BannedfrompostingAC ( 799263 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:08AM (#11917932)
    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.

    • Re:Someone explain... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CommTHOR ( 853212 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:31AM (#11918012)
      I'm not sure how good or relevant an analogy this would be, but I'm thinking it would be like if I, as a Canadian, hired a hitman to kill a U.S. citizen in the U.S. Although I would never have left Canada, my actions would directly influence crimes committed in the United States. Since he likely had fileservers based in the US under his control, that would justify calling it a crime based in the US. Physical location honestly doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance anymore, since a lot of crimes can be done digitally from the other side of the world, and don't require physical access.

      • Re:Someone explain... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by QuantumG ( 50515 )
        Hiring a hitman, and hell, murder, are criminal acts just about anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement isn't a criminal act in Australia. Now if we want to make stupid analogies, lets suppose that I was to send some beer to my American friends. I might do this because Australian beer is far superior to US beer in many ways. If the people drinking it in the US were 19 it would be rediculous for me to be extradited because the legal drinking age is 18 in Australia, not 21. Besides which, it's just

        • Re:Someone explain... (Score:5, Informative)

          by mlyle ( 148697 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:47AM (#11918380)
          You are confused.

          Copyright infringement isn't a criminal act in Australia

          (2) A person shall not, at a time when copyright subsists in a work, distribute:

          (a) for the purpose of trade; or
          (b) for any other purpose to an extent that affects prejudicially the owner of the copyright;
          an article that the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be an infringing copy of the work.
          ...

          (6AA) If:
          (a) a person contravenes subsection (1), (2) or (2A); and
          (b) the article to which the contravention relates is an infringing copy because it was made by converting
          a work or other subject-matter from hardcopy or analog form into a digital or other electronic
          machine-readable form;
          the person is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than 850 penalty
          units and/or imprisonment for not more than 5 years.


          Additional sections exist for nondigital distribution, other modes of violation, etc. Source: Australian Copyright Act of 1968, as amended. [ifrro.org]

          • Re:Someone explain... (Score:3, Informative)

            by TheLink ( 130905 )
            Well, then he should be charged in Australia, not the USA. If the Australian courts can't sentence him for anything under Australian Law then he should go free.

            This isn't anything like extraditing people for war-crimes or similar stuff.

            Just more evidence that Australia is the southernmost state of the US.

            • Re:Someone explain... (Score:3, Informative)

              by mlyle ( 148697 )
              As I've posted about here in the past, Australia's extradition treaty is a reciprocal treaty with the US; Australia is allowed to extradite people from the US for anything that would be considered both a crime in the US and Australia, and vice versa.

              see my previous post [slashdot.org].

              Such terms are typical for reciprocal extradition treaties between countries with friendly relations.

              Of course, your ignorance about international law provides you a good excuse to wave your arms in hysteria. I wouldn't want to take that
              • Of course, your ignorance about international law provides you a good excuse to wave your arms in hysteria.

                We know what the law is, we just think it is fucked. We don't want to be subject to US law, anymore than I expect citizens of the US want to be subject to Australian law (we should really start extraditing all you bastards who own firearms).

      • Re:Someone explain... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Yokaze ( 70883 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:30AM (#11918337)
        How about being prosecuted in Canada? I understand, that I will prosecuted according to the laws of the country I currently reside and to the laws of the country I am citizen of, as it is my duty to be acquainted with both.

        However, I cannot possibly be held responsible for the effects of my actions in every possible country of the world and their respective laws.

        To take an extreme example: In China, distributing pornography is a crime, which can be punished with death penalty. Should one maintain a pornographic page, one certainly could affect the Chinese populace. Does that mean one should be extradited to China?

        • Re:Someone explain... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Keeper ( 56691 )
          If you live in Canada, but commit a crime in the US, you should be extradited.

          If you live in Canada, but commit a crime in the China, you should be extradited.

          If you live in Canada, but commit a crime in Canada, should should be tried in Canada.

          In your China example, you won't be extradited. One of the general requirements for extradition is that the crime you commit is a crime in both countries. One of the other requirements is that you receive a fair trial in the country you are extradited to.

          In thi

    • Re:Someone explain... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris.travers@gmai3.14159l.com minus pi> on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:31AM (#11918015) Homepage Journal
      IANAL so I don't know all the specifics of extraditions....

      However, I am not sure that this is all bad in most cases. Usually extradition deals require a fair amount of dealmaking between the prosecution and the extraditing courts. Usually there is some level of protection of the rights that a person has before extradition. So if someone cannot be tried for the death penalty in the extraditing state, usually this is a condition of extradition. You can imagine what might happen if Osama Bin Ladin were to be captured in a country that has no death penalty (say the UK), the international politics that might result...

      So often extradition is not the trampling on rights that people are afraid it might be.
    • Assume you are a private citizen in country 'A' and build a cruise missile in your garage (turbine engine, GPS-based autopilot, small warhead containing, say, 10 pounds of Semtex) and then fire it towards country 'U', and assume further that you actually cause property damage, you have committed a crime and, yes, you will be extradited.

      In the DrinkOrDie case, a different crime has been committed, but the monetary damage was in country 'U' and not in country 'A', thus an extradition is clearly warranted.

  • When in Rome (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:09AM (#11917937)
    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!

  • Griffiths, who... lives with his parents (Score:5, Funny)

    by InsideTheAsylum ( 836659 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:09AM (#11917941)
    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?!

  • No real surprise here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:12AM (#11917949)
    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.

    • Re:No real surprise here (Score:5, Insightful)

      by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @03:25AM (#11918178)
      "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."

      The most effective (actually the only) way to do this is by a worldwide boycott of all American products and brands. Yes that means not watching American movies, listening to american songs, not drinking coke or pepsi, not wearing nike or addidas even if you favorite soccer player or movie star tells you to.

      More people protested George Bush then any figure in history. There were organized worldwide efforts where millions of people took to the streets. Did GW give a rat's ass? No he did not.

      Do you know what would make him give a rat's ass? The CEO of nike calling him up and giving him the riot act because worldwide sales have fallen by 10% that's what.

      GW does not care what the rest of the world thinks, hell he doesn't care what half of america thinks. He does care about his donors and he sure as hell will change his actions and words if he thinks the money flow into the republican party will slow down.

      As a bonus if the boycott is successful you can cause lasting damage to the US economy which *might* cause them to spend a little less on military misadventures.

      • "The most effective (actually the only) way to do this is by a worldwide boycott of all American products and brands."

        You'll recall that sanctions were imposed on Iraq.

      • Adidas is german (Score:3, Informative)

        by rve ( 4436 )
        see topic

      • The most effective (actually the only) way to do this is by a worldwide boycott of all American products and brands. Yes that means not watching American movies, listening to american songs,

        The movie and music industries will always win. If more people consume their products, they'll get more money. If less people consume their products, they'll blame it on "pirates" and they'll get stricter copyright laws, which will also allow them to make more money in the long run.

      • 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.
      • Actually, most corporations (especially clothing companies) are nothing but marketing heads. That is, they don't design or produce their clothes. Therefore, boycotting such products will actually hurt the design and productions companies, many of which are not American companies (especially the production, which are located in the third world).

        Boycotting US media exports will likewise have a neglible effect, since foreign entities actually distribute and profit from US media in other nations far more than

    • Have you seen the US current account deficit? The rest of the world will soon own the US anyway, then we'll be able to take back control.

  • DrinkOrDie Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Amazing Fish Boy ( 863897 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:13AM (#11917951) Homepage Journal
    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 [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:DrinkOrDie Link (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And the US Government doesn't even know what they're talking about:

      "Beginning in the early 1990s, groups of computer hackers began organizing into competitive gangs that stole software, "cracked" or removed its protections, then posted it on the Internet for distribution by others."

      I guess they were too busy dealing with the communists in the 1980's so they missed the "pirates" by a decade. I remember cracking groups existed in the early 1980's. They weren't called "Warez community", they didn't use inter
      • I wonder where all those cracked Apple II games came from in 1980 too... I don't think anyone even bothered going after the maker of that great "Locksmith" program which clearly was for making a backup copy for, um, safety purposes.

      • Re:DrinkOrDie Link (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "They weren't called "Warez community", they didn't use internet and the PC's, but they were very active in the Sinclair, Commodore 64 and later Amiga games scene.But they weren't hurting M$'s profits, so they must have been innocent at that time..."

        I beg to differ. I was a part of this scene at the time, but 'only' as a courier. I ran a board that was set up at specific times and was on a rotating series of numbers as we'd move our 64C (that was the 'portable' C64) to different houses to the point, we'd

  • Fantastic Police Work! (Score:5, Funny)

    by windowpain ( 211052 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:15AM (#11917960) Journal
    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?

  • Weird. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rolo Tomasi ( 538414 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:18AM (#11917972) Homepage Journal
    I thought (most) countries don't extradite their own citizens, no matter what. At the very least not for relatively minor offenses like this.

    • Re:Weird. (Score:5, Funny)

      by SlayerofGods ( 682938 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:21AM (#11917980)
      Where do you think Australia came from in the first place? ;)
      • Where do you think Australia came from in the first place? ;)

        Which fuckhead modded this pathetic old racist joke "informative"?

      • Re:Weird. (Score:3, Funny)

        by NoMercy ( 105420 )
        If they find him guilty they can always ship him to austrailia ;)

      • Re:Weird. (Score:5, Informative)

        by TDRighteo ( 712858 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @06:35AM (#11918646)
        It's always amusing to watch somebody not from Australia pull out the "settled by convicts" line, with the expectation that it will make Australians uncomfortable. It hasn't for about 30 years or more.

        Seriously, which sorts of people do you think got transported to Australia?
        a) murderers and rapists
        b) political prisoners
        c) small-time theives and vandals
        d) bankrupts

        If you answered a), and you are an American, you have a most astoundingly interesting view of the British justice system at the turn of the 19th century - especially in light of the fact that such people could be executed today if they were US citizens.

        Seeing as b), c) and d) were all transportable offences, which practically anybody's point of view - let alone an Australian's - is a little on the harsh side, why should anybody give a damn?

        Today, it's considered a small matter of pride if you can prove that one of your ancestors was transported to Australia because of their part in an Irish rebellion, their theft of a loaf of bread, or their fall on hard times. Most of those offences practically scream "underdog" - a status that Australian politicians and sporting coaches scramble after to this day. ;-)

        • Seriously, which sorts of people do you think got transported to Australia?
          a) murderers and rapists
          b) political prisoners
          c) small-time theives and vandals
          d) bankrupts

          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 seriousl

      • Re:Weird. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Stiletto ( 12066 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @09:38AM (#11919345)

        Q: Why did Australia get the criminals and the USA get the religious zealots?

        A: Australia was allowed to choose first!
    • The USA doesn't, but thats about the only one I think.

      Even so, Australia (and maybe UK) are probably the only countries with a "special" enough relationship with the USA to extradite someone who has never been to the country. I would imagine if he is found guilty he would serve his time in an Australian jail - that has been done quite often in the past.

    • He is not an Australian citizen.

  • That article has almost no information in it. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IconBasedIdea ( 838710 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:22AM (#11917981)
    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

    • Re:That article has almost no information in it. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dilvie ( 713915 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:57AM (#11918094) Homepage Journal

      I agree with the tone of that article. I think this ruling is very bad, for some very good reasons:

      • A person living outside the United States should not need to worry about US laws -- just as citizens of the United States don't have to worry about China's laws. This sort of thing sets a very scary precident for international law in general.
      • The warez industry provides a very valuable service. I certainly would never shell out cash for expensive software I have never tried. I have never purchased a piece of software I didn't try first -- from Comander Keen, to Photoshop -- try before you buy rules.
      • Some software comes with really annoying copy protection that seems to punish people who purchase a license. I HATE dongles. They often don't work correctly and the copy protection causes weird problems. Warez versions have come to my rescue on numerous occaisions. In short, cracking should not be a crime.

      I would have demanded my money back for several software packages if a warez version didn't fix the problems with copy protection. The software industry should be kissing this guy's ass, not putting him in jail.

    • Re:That article has almost no information in it. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Give this article a shot.

      http://www.chokedout.org/SPT--FullRecord.php?Re s ou 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

  • To those in Australia (Score:5, Insightful)

    by johnnywheeze ( 792148 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:36AM (#11918032)
    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?

    • Re:To those in Australia (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:45AM (#11918064)
      We get to keep our ANZUS treaty alive... which is important to alot of Aussies because we have an irrational xenophobic idea that Indonesia will try to invade us one day. (our army being outnumbered 3 to 1 by McDonalds employees and all)

    • Re:To those in Australia (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      without any sort of problems with resentment, national pride, or even seemingly rational thought.

      Sorry...are you suggesting that this happens without any resentment from the Australian people? "Resentment" and "United States of America" are practically the same word in Australia.

    • Firstly there has been exactly zero coverage of this trial on our nation media. None, honestly the first most have heard of this is on slashdot.

      Second our government is a majority government, meaning they can do what ever they want for the next three years unopposed.

      Thirdly Howard lies a lot. No one likes it but for some reason no one does anything.

      Honestly the man could not disgust 49% of the population more.
      • Furthermore I should add that the main channels in australia are owned by Rupert Merdoc and Kerry Packer, both are huge supporters of the Howard government.

        The countries state funded channels, SBS and ABC, and the State funded radio station, Triple J, have the most vocal critizims of the government. The problem is that people do not see the censorship going on and honestly believe the things Howard says.

        He is a terrible person, honestly he is completly selling out our country and most Australians are just

  • Pirates go international! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kaorimoch ( 858523 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:37AM (#11918038) Journal
    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.

  • The lawyer's reasoning... (Score:4, Funny)

    by FoboldFKY ( 785255 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @03:14AM (#11918145)
    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...

  • Interesting interview of BanDiDo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joetheappleguy ( 865543 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:07AM (#11918288) Homepage
    Some interesting quotes from this article [defacto2.net], I wish I knew how long ago this interview took place.
    [BanDiDo] : I cannot be busted, I have no warez here... And it is not a crime to be in a group. I have however, known many people who have been busted over the years. Some due to their own stupidity, but the majority due to "narcs". (Another unwelcome part of the newbie attacks we suffer from)
    Hindsight, etc. A while back I knew a few people in Zeraw and it really amazed me just how much software went through their servers, something like six or seven 120GB drives' worth of stuff every 2 weeks or so. (This in 1998). It wasn't much of an issue as far as an impact on the industry until some started selling the stuff and it when it became way too easy for the man-on-the-street to get in and get stuff instead of actually going out and buying it. I'm actually surprised these groups lasted so long.

  • disturbing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by idlake ( 850372 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @08:31AM (#11919020)
    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.

  • It started with Panama, as I see it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @08:38AM (#11919056) Homepage
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.

Close