America wins right to extradite Australian pirate

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by samg, Sep 7, 2004.

  1. samg

    samg Guest

    'New Zealand software pirates risk extradition to the United States following
    a ground-breaking ruling against an Australian man accused of pirating
    software, games and music worth up to US$50 million.

    Mark Kelly, senior associate at Auckland's Simpson Grierson, said the Hew
    Raymond Griffiths case in Australia confirmed that people based in one
    country and accused of software piracy could be brought to justice in another
    under extradition law.'

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3589541

    Geez whats next?
    samg, Sep 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <Xns955DA7DD4DB1Dsamg@203.97.37.6>, samg <> wrote:
    >'New Zealand software pirates risk extradition to the United States following
    >a ground-breaking ruling against an Australian man accused of pirating
    >software, games and music worth up to US$50 million.
    >
    >Mark Kelly, senior associate at Auckland's Simpson Grierson, said the Hew
    >Raymond Griffiths case in Australia confirmed that people based in one
    >country and accused of software piracy could be brought to justice in another
    >under extradition law.'
    >
    >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3589541
    >
    >Geez whats next?


    Under a National government, a modification of copyright law to make all
    copying a criminal offence, not just copying done "in the course of a
    business", and punishable by several years in jail.
    With that little detail out of the way, any person who breaks copyright
    law would be up for a free trip to the US, and accomodation courtesy of
    the US government.

    Too cynical? Not the way Don's been greasing up to the United States of
    Corporations :/

    The Extradition Act labels a person as "extraditable" if the maximum
    penalty is at least a year in prison, and if the crime with which they
    have been charged was a crime under NZ law at the time of the offence,
    with a maximum penalty of at least a year in prison.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Sep 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. samg

    Bret Guest

    On 7 Sep 2004 16:31:26 +1200, samg <> wrote:

    >'New Zealand software pirates risk extradition to the United States following
    >a ground-breaking ruling against an Australian man accused of pirating
    >software, games and music worth up to US$50 million.
    >
    >Mark Kelly, senior associate at Auckland's Simpson Grierson, said the Hew
    >Raymond Griffiths case in Australia confirmed that people based in one
    >country and accused of software piracy could be brought to justice in another
    >under extradition law.'
    >
    >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3589541
    >
    >Geez whats next?


    He was party to offences commited in the US.
    He wasn't charged in Australia.
    Bret, Sep 7, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <>, (Peter) was seen to type:
    (snip)
    >This begs the question of whether the USA courts will allow its
    >citizens to be extradited to NZ or Oz, or whether it will enforce
    >judgements of our courts.


    I guess "very unlikely". They have already exempted themselves from
    warcrimes ... how much easier will it be for the small stuff ? :)



    Bruce


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
    think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
    If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
    I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
    of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
    the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 7, 2004
    #4
  5. samg

    Peter Guest

    On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 04:56:14 GMT, (Matthew Poole)
    wrote:


    >>Geez whats next?

    >
    >Under a National government, a modification of copyright law to make all
    >copying a criminal offence, not just copying done "in the course of a
    >business", and punishable by several years in jail.
    >With that little detail out of the way, any person who breaks copyright
    >law would be up for a free trip to the US, and accomodation courtesy of
    >the US government.
    >
    >Too cynical? Not the way Don's been greasing up to the United States of
    >Corporations :/
    >
    >The Extradition Act labels a person as "extraditable" if the maximum
    >penalty is at least a year in prison, and if the crime with which they
    >have been charged was a crime under NZ law at the time of the offence,
    >with a maximum penalty of at least a year in prison.
    >

    There was a slightly similar case a few years ago where a failed
    British academic flame-baited on sci.physics and then took defamation
    action against those responding in a careless manner. He also
    discovered that it was very easy to 'shake down' people in NZ, etc
    where it is pretty easy for overseas people to enforce judgements in
    NZ courts. The cost of NZ'ers defending defamation action in British
    courts would be horrendously expensive hence he could win judgements
    thre virtually by default and he had a sufficiently sized war chest to
    lodge a 'John Doe' suit then subpoena a NZ ISP or organisation (eg
    university) to yield the identity of the person he was after.

    This begs the question of whether the USA courts will allow its
    citizens to be extradited to NZ or Oz, or whether it will enforce
    judgements of our courts.

    Interestingly, the US President leaned on Singapore a few years ago
    concerning a young American caught scratching cars with a stone.
    Being the pragmmatists they are, the Singaporeans yielded silghtly,
    but not as much as the Americans would have liked.
    Peter, Sep 7, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <>, Bret <> was seen to type:
    (snip)
    >It's a moot point, the guy was party to an offence commited IN the
    >USA.


    Any idea what 'being a party to' means in this case ? ... and could it
    be extended (the logical outcome of precedents) to being much less of
    a party to in the future ?


    Bruce


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
    think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
    If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
    I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
    of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
    the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 8, 2004
    #6
  7. samg

    Evil Bastard Guest

    samg wrote:
    > 'New Zealand software pirates risk extradition to the United States following
    > a ground-breaking ruling against an Australian man accused of pirating
    > software, games and music worth up to US$50 million.
    >
    > Mark Kelly, senior associate at Auckland's Simpson Grierson, said the Hew
    > Raymond Griffiths case in Australia confirmed that people based in one
    > country and accused of software piracy could be brought to justice in another
    > under extradition law.'
    >
    > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3589541
    >
    > Geez whats next?


    One realistic scenario I can think of - a programmer in NZ who
    designs/writes a program in a way which is totally legal in NZ, and
    which is based totally on his/her own inventions, but which
    inadvertantly breaches patents in USA.

    Or, writes a program to perform data format conversion in a way totally
    legal within NZ, but which breaches some bizarre interpretation of DMCA
    in USA

    Less realistic - someone here who puts up a website criticising China,
    in a way which breaches Chinese law, but is totally legal in NZ.

    --
    Cheers
    EB

    --

    One who is not a conservative by age 20 has no brain.
    One who is not a liberal by age 40 has no heart.
    Evil Bastard, Sep 8, 2004
    #7
  8. samg

    Bret Guest

    On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:03:33 +1200, Evil Bastard <>
    wrote:

    >samg wrote:
    >> 'New Zealand software pirates risk extradition to the United States following
    >> a ground-breaking ruling against an Australian man accused of pirating
    >> software, games and music worth up to US$50 million.
    >>
    >> Mark Kelly, senior associate at Auckland's Simpson Grierson, said the Hew
    >> Raymond Griffiths case in Australia confirmed that people based in one
    >> country and accused of software piracy could be brought to justice in another
    >> under extradition law.'
    >>
    >> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3589541
    >>
    >> Geez whats next?

    >
    >One realistic scenario I can think of - a programmer in NZ who
    >designs/writes a program in a way which is totally legal in NZ, and
    >which is based totally on his/her own inventions, but which
    >inadvertantly breaches patents in USA.
    >
    >Or, writes a program to perform data format conversion in a way totally
    >legal within NZ, but which breaches some bizarre interpretation of DMCA
    >in USA
    >
    >Less realistic - someone here who puts up a website criticising China,
    >in a way which breaches Chinese law, but is totally legal in NZ.
    >


    It's a moot point, the guy was party to an offence commited IN the
    USA.
    Bret, Sep 8, 2004
    #8
  9. samg

    Peter Guest

    On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:03:33 +1200, Evil Bastard <>
    wrote:

    >One realistic scenario I can think of - a programmer in NZ who
    >designs/writes a program in a way which is totally legal in NZ, and
    >which is based totally on his/her own inventions, but which
    >inadvertantly breaches patents in USA.
    >
    >Or, writes a program to perform data format conversion in a way totally
    >legal within NZ, but which breaches some bizarre interpretation of DMCA
    >in USA
    >
    >Less realistic - someone here who puts up a website criticising China,
    >in a way which breaches Chinese law, but is totally legal in NZ.
    >

    AFAIK to be extradited your activity needs to be a criminal one that
    contravenes NZ law if comitted in the NZ context, as well as being an
    offence in the country seeking extradition. Blatant copyright piracy
    meets this criterion. Would not apply to patent breaches as this is a
    civil matter.

    You cannot be extradited for civil matters, but overseas judgements
    may be enforceable (and have so been) in NZ. This is especially so
    with contract law. A Kiwi may well need to front up to an overseas
    court to avoid losing by default.
    Peter, Sep 8, 2004
    #9
  10. In article <>, Bret <> was seen to type:
    >On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:32:46 GMT,
    > (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>, Bret <> was

    > seen to type:
    >>(snip)
    >>>It's a moot point, the guy was party to an offence commited IN the
    >>>USA.

    >>
    >>Any idea what 'being a party to' means in this case ? ... and could it
    >>be extended (the logical outcome of precedents) to being much less of
    >>a party to in the future ?
    >>

    >That's always going to be the danger Bruce.
    >I see the danger and doubt our governments ability to resist :(
    >See below how Griffiths is considered to be a party.
    >
    >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 alleged that he made
    >money from his activities.


    Yeah ... see what you mean. "helped" and "alleged". Bugger.



    Bruce


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
    think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
    If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
    I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
    of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
    the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 8, 2004
    #10
  11. samg

    Bret Guest

    On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:32:46 GMT,
    z (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

    >In article <>, Bret <> was seen to type:
    >(snip)
    >>It's a moot point, the guy was party to an offence commited IN the
    >>USA.

    >
    >Any idea what 'being a party to' means in this case ? ... and could it
    >be extended (the logical outcome of precedents) to being much less of
    >a party to in the future ?
    >


    That's always going to be the danger Bruce.
    I see the danger and doubt our governments ability to resist :(
    See below how Griffiths is considered to be a party.

    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 alleged that he made
    money from his activities.
    Bret, Sep 8, 2004
    #11
  12. In article <>, (Peter) was seen to type:
    >On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:43:49 GMT,
    > (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
    >>>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 alleged that he made
    >>>money from his activities.

    >>
    >>Yeah ... see what you mean. "helped" and "alleged". Bugger.
    >>

    >I think that the Aussie Court has set a very undesirable precedent.
    >If a person is a US citizen, born in USA, a US green card holder or
    >visited USA in connection with the alleged offence then extradition
    >could be warranted, but not otherwise.


    Agreed ... partly :) If they were extraditing spammers I'd be all for
    it :)

    I note also that, if the accused faced the death penalty in the USA,
    the chances of being extradicted would almost certainly drop to nil
    ... at least from NZ ... and I suspect Aus too.
    Seems you are better off to kill than to steal ... no idea what
    message that sends ... but it aint comforting :)


    Bruce


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
    think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
    If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
    I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
    of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
    the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 8, 2004
    #12
  13. samg

    Peter Guest

    On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:43:49 GMT,
    z (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:


    >>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 alleged that he made
    >>money from his activities.

    >
    >Yeah ... see what you mean. "helped" and "alleged". Bugger.
    >

    I think that the Aussie Court has set a very undesirable precedent.
    If a person is a US citizen, born in USA, a US green card holder or
    visited USA in connection with the alleged offence then extradition
    could be warranted, but not otherwise.
    Peter, Sep 8, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <>, (Peter) wrote:
    >On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:03:33 +1200, Evil Bastard <>
    >wrote:

    *SNIP*
    >>Less realistic - someone here who puts up a website criticising China,
    >>in a way which breaches Chinese law, but is totally legal in NZ.
    >>

    >AFAIK to be extradited your activity needs to be a criminal one that
    >contravenes NZ law if comitted in the NZ context, as well as being an
    >offence in the country seeking extradition.

    *SNIP*

    Correct. And it must have been a crime in NZ at the time. So even if
    the Government were to put a law into effect tomorrow to outlaw
    criticising the Chinese Government, things I say up until midnight
    tonight are not able to be used to extradite me to China.

    My concern is that National are likely to sell out in order to achieve a
    trade agreement with the US, and that selling out will entail dramatic
    and nasty rewrites of NZ's IP law. This is a much more likely scenario,
    given how the Yanks play the trade agreement game.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Sep 8, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <chm6g3$it7$>, (Matthew Poole) was seen to type:
    >In article <>,
    > (Peter) wrote:
    >>On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:03:33 +1200, Evil Bastard <>
    >>wrote:

    >*SNIP*
    >>>Less realistic - someone here who puts up a website criticising China,
    >>>in a way which breaches Chinese law, but is totally legal in NZ.
    >>>

    >>AFAIK to be extradited your activity needs to be a criminal one that
    >>contravenes NZ law if comitted in the NZ context, as well as being an
    >>offence in the country seeking extradition.

    >*SNIP*
    >
    >Correct. And it must have been a crime in NZ at the time. So even if
    >the Government were to put a law into effect tomorrow to outlaw
    >criticising the Chinese Government, things I say up until midnight
    >tonight are not able to be used to extradite me to China.
    >
    >My concern is that National are likely to sell out in order to achieve a
    >trade agreement with the US, and that selling out will entail dramatic
    >and nasty rewrites of NZ's IP law. This is a much more likely scenario,
    >given how the Yanks play the trade agreement game.


    Agreed. There is very little that is "free" in any of their trade
    agreements :)


    Bruce


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
    think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
    If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
    I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
    of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
    the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 8, 2004
    #15
  16. samg

    Peter Guest

    On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 03:59:49 GMT,
    z (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:


    >I note also that, if the accused faced the death penalty in the USA,
    >the chances of being extradicted would almost certainly drop to nil
    >.. at least from NZ ... and I suspect Aus too.
    >Seems you are better off to kill than to steal ... no idea what
    >message that sends ... but it aint comforting :)
    >

    I do not know, but I guess that extradition treaties cover this sort
    of thing so that those extradited are not subject to worse penalties
    (eg execution, whipping etc) than provided for in the country of
    arrest. Having said that, USA jails seem to be crappier than Aus
    jails and Aus ones crappier than NZ ones, but extradition treaties
    probably do not cover this, except in broad terms.
    Peter, Sep 8, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <chjihr$lc8$> in nz.comp on Tue, 07 Sep 2004
    04:56:14 GMT, Matthew Poole <> says...
    > In article <Xns955DA7DD4DB1Dsamg@203.97.37.6>, samg <> wrote:
    > >'New Zealand software pirates risk extradition to the United States following
    > >a ground-breaking ruling against an Australian man accused of pirating
    > >software, games and music worth up to US$50 million.
    > >
    > >Mark Kelly, senior associate at Auckland's Simpson Grierson, said the Hew
    > >Raymond Griffiths case in Australia confirmed that people based in one
    > >country and accused of software piracy could be brought to justice in another
    > >under extradition law.'
    > >
    > >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3589541
    > >
    > >Geez whats next?

    >
    > Under a National government, a modification of copyright law to make all
    > copying a criminal offence, not just copying done "in the course of a
    > business", and punishable by several years in jail.
    > With that little detail out of the way, any person who breaks copyright
    > law would be up for a free trip to the US, and accomodation courtesy of
    > the US government.
    >
    > Too cynical? Not the way Don's been greasing up to the United States of
    > Corporations :/


    Political crap.

    Only a certain amount of copyright infringement comes under the criminal
    justice law at present; the vast majority has always been under the civil
    code.
    Patrick Dunford, Sep 8, 2004
    #17
  18. samg

    Peter Guest

    On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:48:54 GMT, (Matthew Poole)
    wrote:


    >My concern is that National are likely to sell out in order to achieve a
    >trade agreement with the US, and that selling out will entail dramatic
    >and nasty rewrites of NZ's IP law. This is a much more likely scenario,
    >given how the Yanks play the trade agreement game.
    >

    Remember it was National who allowed parallel importing much to the
    ire of the recordng / film industry and refused to back down in the
    face of USA objection. It was Labour that was effectively 'rolled' on
    this one by the industry which argued that the small town cinema
    industry would be killed and that authors would starve to death in
    their garrets.
    Peter, Sep 8, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <>, (Peter) wrote:
    >On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:48:54 GMT, (Matthew Poole)
    >wrote:

    *SNIP*
    >Remember it was National who allowed parallel importing much to the
    >ire of the recordng / film industry and refused to back down in the
    >face of USA objection. It was Labour that was effectively 'rolled' on
    >this one by the industry which argued that the small town cinema
    >industry would be killed and that authors would starve to death in
    >their garrets.
    >

    Be that as it may, National are the ones who seem to be getting the
    biggest hard-on over a trade agreement with the US. And the Yanks don't
    do trade agreements unless the other country brings their IP laws into
    line with US ones - Most recently Australia, and that agreement still
    hasn't had parliamentary ratification, in part because of the IP law
    changes that are expected.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Sep 8, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <>, Patrick Dunford <> wrote:
    >In article <chjihr$lc8$> in nz.comp on Tue, 07 Sep 2004
    >04:56:14 GMT, Matthew Poole <> says...

    *SNIP*
    >Political crap.
    >
    >Only a certain amount of copyright infringement comes under the criminal
    >justice law at present; the vast majority has always been under the civil
    >code.


    I suggest that you look at what the Yanks have demanded from the Aussies
    in return for the still unratified trade agreement. My speculation is
    based upon witnessed behaviour on the part of the US, and National's
    apparent willingness to sell out to the US to secure a trade agreement.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Sep 8, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jtyc
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    470
  2. Corrado Labinaz

    WINS server not a WINS client

    Corrado Labinaz, Mar 7, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    624
    Herb Martin
    Mar 7, 2004
  3. Zogby
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    2,915
    Rowdy Yates
    Aug 15, 2004
  4. C
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    656
    Briscobar
    Sep 20, 2005
  5. JaR

    MS busts a pirate (sorta)

    JaR, Dec 9, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    361
Loading...

Share This Page