crime and sovereignty

[reverancepavane]

I'd been expecting maelorin to comment on this article for a number of days now. http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/aussie-pirate-extradited/2007/05/06/1178390182639.html The problem, as I see it, is not, as most people seem to be arguing on one side or the other, the crime of software piracy, but rather the matter of national sovereignty and the court that has jurisdiction of the case. To my, admittedly non-lawyer sensibilities, any alleged crime was commited within Australia and therefore the Australian courts have the jurisdiction of the case and it must be tried under Australian law. [1] If Australian law is insufficient to achieve the ends of the government then the government must attempt to change the law with regard to future cases of this type, by setting new laws, as they are legally empowered to do. This seems to set a dangerous precedent that Australian law is actually subservient to US law, which is an abolition of national sovereignty. [2] To carry the example one step further, it sets a precedent that the US government can extradite any citizen of Australia for breaking an American law. Since a government has been given the responsibility to enforce it's laws, I soon expect to hear that the US government will attempt to extradite the Prime Minister for the crime of "driving on the wrong side of the road." This shows the ridiculous nature of the assertion. If the situation was reversed, I can assure you that the US State Department would laugh it's face off at the attempt to extradite one of their citizens for trial. They have a strong history for resisting the attempts of foreign sovereignties to try their citizens for any reason whatsoever, even if the alleged crime was committed within that other sovereignty. [1] Civil torts on the other hand can have a court of jurisdiction specified within the contract. You'll notice this in most EULAs, usually with the court of jurisdiction (currently) being Israel (because Israel has some of the friendliest anti-piracy legislation). However this is a civil case over the contract that exists between yourself (when you hit that "I accept the terms of this contract" button), and the producers of the software. Even if a civil liability is granted against the offender, no criminal liability attaches as a result of that judgement. [2] I wonder if it is possible to be able to bring a treason charge against Senator Ellison for this reason. [Unfortuneately any attempt to do so would fail the "laugh test." (if the statement of the case makes a distinguished lawyer or judge laugh out loud then it's probably not worthwhile proceeding with it.]

Comments

[maelorin]

i have been so caught up with stuff going on around my life personally, that i have not had a chance to follow up on this stuff.

the david hicks debacle shows clearly that our current federal government is more interested in 'being friendly' toward the usa than worrying about the rights of australian citizens. [do note that mr griffiths is a british national, not an australian.]

i have said elsewhere that copyright laws are stupid, doubly so in the usa. this is not really about copyright - as you point out - it's about the inappropriate use of power, and the hard-to-justify continuing failure of our executive government to care about the rule of (our) law.

with hicks the 'argument' was that, well, he hadn't committed any offences against australian law and would have to "go free" unless we let the usa make up a law of their own to convict him of ... O_o

here we have the usa applying a dumbarse law of their own making against a person outside of their jursidiction - but for the helpful intervention of our government. who chose to hand him over.

it's not that our government is subsuming our sovereignty to the usa, so much as only when dealing with the usa do they consider the laws and policies and politics and economics and bullshit of the usa to be in need of our compliance/complicity. oh, wait a moment ... O_o

it is very clear that the single most obvious characteristic of the neocons* is that money is the only value. it is god.

to face the possibility of extradition over allegations of theft/fraud of $1000 gives copyright law - usa copyright law - a position unlike any other. it costs more than that just to fly a single person to the usa. extradition requires at least one, usually two, babysitters (erm, police) to accompany. that's not to consider the other costs involved.

in other news: i'm getting my british passport as soon as i can. and will be using it any time i have to enter usa controlled-territory.

* none of their cons are new. just stupidly in power at the moment :(

[dubhain.livejournal.com]

We're working on getting the most egregious neoconservative whackjobs out of office. Unfortunately, it's a slow process. They were working on getting into positions of power since 1980, after all.

I will not try to defend US copyright law. It is indefensible. 'Nuff said. In fact, it's nearly as insipid as the extradition of Hew Griffiths.

A British passport would be a good thing to have in the US. We've still something of an inferiority complex when it comes to England, and tend to wag our tails and bark whenever they deign to notice us or visit our country.

[maelorin]

and the brits tend to get all "they're ours, hands off" over their citizens.

aus used to be fairly laid back - but our current government seems to be actively "hey, sure thing 'ol buddy 'ol pal" O_o

[maelorin]

We're working on getting the most egregious neoconservative whackjobs out of office. Unfortunately, it's a slow process. They were working on getting into positions of power since 1980, after all.

propaganda takes some time to set up, but is awfully effective once the lever is pulled ...

[dubhain.livejournal.com]

Much like a gallows. Yes.

[maelorin]

indeed. though gallows is at least an 'entertaining' public spectacle.

this shit is serious.

[kishnevi.livejournal.com]

Talk about longarm jurisdiction!
I bet they wouldn't get very far with this in China.
Technical question: here in the US, Senator is a purely legislative position, without any power to sign any sort of warrant. How does the Aussie version differ?