|
Post by notagoodname on Feb 23, 2007 3:29:28 GMT -5
Well here's a storey that pisses me, as a patriotic Australian, off. Hew Raymond Griffiths, a resident of Australia who has never set foot on American soil is being extradited to America for copyright law violations. www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=55&objectid=3589541The crime was committed while he was in Australia, the man is an Australian resident, he has never set foot in America. Why the hell should any foreign law apply!? I guess we Australians now have to be careful not to do anything that may break American law
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Feb 23, 2007 5:58:28 GMT -5
$50 million is a lot of Pirated DvDs etc are you really suprised he got extradited for it Only part confusing me is why The Australian Government didnt lock him up themselves Small price to pay for recieving $50 million dollars ?
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 23, 2007 8:15:24 GMT -5
Many countries have reciprocity regarding extradition. Blame your own country.
Besides, think what hell it would be if any criminal could profit by running a scheme that breaks the laws of any other country. What if I decided to counterfeit Australian currency and exchange the phony bills for US dollars in Canada? Should I be able to get away with that?
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Feb 23, 2007 18:40:34 GMT -5
$50 million is a lot of Pirated DvDs etc are you really suprised he got extradited for it Only part confusing me is why The Australian Government didnt lock him up themselves Small price to pay for recieving $50 million dollars ? Sorry that picture in the article is misleading. They didn't make a profit nor did they have any DVDs or sell any DVDs. Even the judge acknowledged profit was not their motive. They simply uploaded cracked games and such online. The $50million is a typical BS figure that **AA organisations make up when dealing with uploaded/downloaded data. Link about the group: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DrinkOrDie
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Feb 23, 2007 18:46:11 GMT -5
Many countries have reciprocity regarding extradition. Blame your own country. Besides, think what hell it would be if any criminal could profit by running a scheme that breaks the laws of any other country. What if I decided to counterfeit Australian currency and exchange the phony bills for US dollars in Canada? Should I be able to get away with that? Indeed i do blame my own country and am against the close ties we have with the states. As i said he didn't do it for profit. It was simply internet warezing. As for the regards to breaking a law of a foreign nation it shouldn't be applicable unless you are in that nation. Australia has copyright laws, if someone breaks those laws in Australia they should be tried in Australia. Foreign copyright laws should never apply. If someone counterfeits in Canada they should be tried in Canada. As a counter-example, imagine posting nipples online and being extradited to Saudi-Arabia because they don't allow that thing there? Sure you may have posted it in America, but hey it's illegal in Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Feb 25, 2007 13:14:46 GMT -5
ur right notagoodname. I think whatever movies where made in whatever crap hole country ur from, he should get a pass on. But all the movies the guy stole from international american companys, those international companys have a right to rain him in.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Feb 26, 2007 21:56:18 GMT -5
ur right notagoodname. I think whatever movies where made in whatever crap hole country ur from, he should get a pass on. But all the movies the guy stole from international american companys, those international companys have a right to rain him in. Satan, you are the most stereotypical American of all time! Congratz.
|
|
|
Post by smatt834 on Feb 27, 2007 14:28:43 GMT -5
and who said world government is going to benefit the already rich and powerful. not I. nope. I never said any such thing.
sarcasim aside, he can be tried in U.S. courts because his activities involved commercial interests and in International Law when a person or state is engaged in commercial activities they give up some of their sovereignty. I never said I agreed with this principle but the fact remains that this is how it is. Australia has no sovereign power to shelter this man from extradition to U.S. courts, where a corporation can sue him for copyright infringement.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Feb 27, 2007 22:35:35 GMT -5
Well if they guy hadn't donned his Captain's hat, hoisted the mizzenmast, and boarded the enemy galleon.... then proceeded to give all the cargo away to various people of the world, none of this would have happened.
Didn't they used to hang pirates without a trial?
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Feb 28, 2007 3:36:34 GMT -5
Well here's a storey that pisses me, as a patriotic Australian, off. The crime was committed while he was in Australia, the man is an Australian resident, he has never set foot in America. Why the hell should any foreign law apply!? I guess we Australians now have to be careful not to do anything that may break American law Discouraging to see your comments. "as a patriotic Australian" ... but not law abiding? "Why the hell should any foreign law apply!?" ...not even for any crime I suppose? "I guess we Australians now have to be careful not to do anything that may break American law " When did copyright infringement become reduced to "American law" When did breakin the law to any extent become ok? Sounds like sorry for getting caught not sorry for the deed to me...
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Feb 28, 2007 4:11:06 GMT -5
Indeed i do blame my own country and am against the close ties we have with the states. As i said he didn't do it for profit. It was simply internet warezing. As for the regards to breaking a law of a foreign nation it shouldn't be applicable unless you are in that nation. Australia has copyright laws, if someone breaks those laws in Australia they should be tried in Australia. Foreign copyright laws should never apply. If someone counterfeits in Canada they should be tried in Canada. As a counter-example, imagine posting nipples online and being extradited to Saudi-Arabia because they don't allow that thing there? Sure you may have posted it in America, but hey it's illegal in Saudi Arabia. Lets say you procure the ability to devise a device that is ahead of it's time. How about a thingy Tracey style wrist watch (has a wireless phone built in also the ability to send video 'calls' as well). Obviously, the market takes off and it becomes a success, as do you. Let's suppose some guy takes the plans you have for your device and mass produces it overseas, in sri lanka. Now this guy is selling these neat things all over the place...for less money. I'll stop short; "As i said he didn't do it for profit." OK, the guy is only doing it to help the starving people of his nation... You would just say, hey, np, thats ok with me... Are you serious? I read through what you said a few times as to be sure of what you mean. I hope I misunderstand the message your sending out. That or you are very ignorant bordering on dim, I hope I am wrong there. It was simply internet warezing. Yea, no big deal, no one hurt noone bothered...? Huh?As for the regards to breaking a law of a foreign nation it shouldn't be applicable unless you are in that nation. - I could see this going either way for many situations. Australia has copyright laws, if someone breaks those laws in Australia they should be tried in Australia .- Yup. but if they Broke international laws and or accords they must also be accountable,no? Whiplash makes a sound point to this as well. Foreign copyright laws should never apply. - this could be the clincher, if anyone even needs to explain this one, well... If someone counterfeits in Canada they should be tried in Canada. - no one said anything about counterfeiting in canada...um? "As a counter-example, imagine posting nipples online and being extradited to Saudi-Arabia because they don't allow that thing there? Sure you may have posted it in America, but hey it's illegal in Saudi Arabia." LMAO, that makes no sense. You make the point that both countries have a copyright law for the non 'example'. Your example uses a scenario where it may be illegal for said activities in one country only. ("As for the regards to breaking a law of a foreign nation it shouldn't be applicable unless you are in that nation." well, which is it? ) Should we go and banty back and forth about what crimes are severe enough to actually extradite people from here to there? Actually, no need. You have already professed your indifference to anything happening outside your country.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Feb 28, 2007 4:15:25 GMT -5
ur right notagoodname. I think whatever movies where made in whatever crap hole country ur from, he should get a pass on. But all the movies the guy stole from international american companys, those international companys have a right to rain him in. Satan, you are the most stereotypical American of all time! Congratz. I'm not sure if your getting so touchy because he returned fire when someone shot one accross his bow or if your miffed seeing someone refer to your countries vassal state in that manor. Either way I find it funny.
|
|
|
Post by arthursrodrigues on Feb 28, 2007 7:14:34 GMT -5
Brazilians nationals can't be extradicted! And even if we could, it would take so many years that I'd probably be dead. Remember the british who stole the payer-train and came to Brazil ;D
|
|
|
Post by arthursrodrigues on Feb 28, 2007 7:18:06 GMT -5
It's funny how anglo-saxan countries accept the extradiction of their own nationals. Only Britain, the US and Auss (maybe NZ) allow that. Not even one european country (I dunno now within the territory of the EU) allows that, all latino's countries forbid that too.
Not be dumb I know that 2 nationalities ppl receive different treatment.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 28, 2007 9:09:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by IanDC on Feb 28, 2007 10:56:54 GMT -5
Different issues, extraditing somebody who has "fled Justice" back to the place where the crime was committed is the general rule. The case as mentioned & We have also had one recently in the UK that caused a lot of anger is where the crime is alleged to have occurred in Australia by an Australian so why isn't the trial being held in Australia. I don't blame the US for it, if other governments fail their electorate then it should be them that gets the blame, I certainly blame the UK government for agreeing a deal that allows this & then putting it into law even though the US Congress hasn't ratified it on their side so it's a completely one sided arrangement. Australia has copyright laws, if someone breaks those laws in Australia they should be tried in Australia .- Yup. but if they Broke international laws and or accords they must also be accountable,no? Whiplash makes a sound point to this as well. If you break any law you should be accountable. An international law by definition has to be recognised in both countries for it to apply so why isn't the prosecution occurring where the crime did ? The copyright owner may be a Foreign company but the crime is still a breach of Australian law in Australia by an Australian so should be tried there.
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Mar 1, 2007 0:48:00 GMT -5
As i said this is a slippery slope. If you can get extradited to a country that you have never been to and charged against their laws then you are being subject to laws from 2 seperate countries. Laws which often contradict.
Think about where this can go, especially for a nation easily pressured into extradition as it is here.
Post political dissent on Chinas leadership and have China pressure Australia into extraditing the person. Post titties online and have Saudi Arabia extradite you and hang you there. Share MP3 files and have the RIAA jail you for 10 years in whatever country has the toughest copyright laws. etc.
It's a screwed up situation.
|
|
|
Post by alice on Mar 1, 2007 15:43:20 GMT -5
i agree with notagood on this one, it is rather disturbing, on a few levels imo, People do their damndest to control the spread of software/movies as if they are property, when in fact they are information. Furthermore it is the nature of all information to spread, try as they might they will simply not be able to stem the flow any more then they could fight the tide. As a result we will likely have a few people whom in being made an "example" are disproportionately prosecuted. The extradition is concerning for me because it is represents corperation blatently exersizing the power of government. Highly disturbing, for in their multinational presence they are free to change the rules as they see fit, they are not held accountable to a people or subject to any form of constitution. Its an ugly formula, ironicly, by granting corperations the rights of individuals, they disble the rights of the individual.
|
|
|
Post by DustyDragoon on Mar 1, 2007 19:51:17 GMT -5
K lets see who really is getting hurt here? A multinational company from the states is suing a man in I think you stated Australia for downloading and selling movies that are popular enough that they have (The American Company) already made millions from? Does anyone really have sympathy for this company? Do they really need to make an example out of this man? In my opinion, no. Though I don't feel it should be ignored, the American company knew the risks of putting their movies on the internet, and what might happen if they made them available in other countries. So why the surprise when someone takes advantage of it? The man should be tried in his own country and if the American company does not like the results, push for change in laws and penalties in that country or no longer deal with it. If Hollywood and the rest of the American Movie Industry was in serious financial trouble I might be able to see where they would have a just cause, but with the Billions paid to actors, directors, and production staff, I doubt very much this is the case and the movies the man may have sold were no doubt sold to those that could not afford the American price tag attached to the movies and therefore would not have bought them if not for the fact they were pirated. Like stated by a few in here already, be careful what you ask for, as the laws and regulations in other country's is far more severe than in the States and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words, I'm sure the American Movie Industry has submited nudity in their movies, so as stated previously, the countries where nudity is illegal, should they also be subjected to thier laws? What about the promotion of drugs in some of the movies? Again some pretty stiff penaltlies in other countries concerning that as well. Would be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot eh?;D
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Mar 1, 2007 21:03:04 GMT -5
The American company put their movies on the internet?
I doubt it!
|
|