Motley Is A Fool's Uniform

maelorin

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.]