Again the Australian government has allowed one of its citizens be punished by the United States for a “crime” which did not occur in the US. As the article in The Age explains, Mr Griffiths was involved in copyright infringement:
“From his home base on the central coast of NSW, he served as the leader of a group named Drink Or Die, which “cracked” copy-protected software and media products and distributed them free of cost … Griffiths did not make money from his activities …”
Griffiths appealed the decision allowing for the extradition, but special leave to the High Court was refused. [For those so inclined, here's the Full Federal Court's decision]
“His fate lay in the hands of Senator Ellison, who had the power to refuse Griffiths’ extradition. But in December, Senator Ellison issued a warrant for extradition — a decision welcomed by the US Government. Griffiths’ extradition in February is believed to be the first out of Australia for a breach of intellectual property law.”
There are a few questions that must be asked:
- Why should he be subject to US law and face trial there, when the Australia has its own copyright law? [Copyright Act 1968 in 2003] Surely Australian authorities could investigate and prosecute under Australian law. Why are we allowing the US step in and prosecute in their courts using their laws?
- Why is he even facing criminal charges? The owners of the copyright could sue for their losses, is this not a more appropriate response to his action? I still believe that the general public does not view copyright infringement as being “criminal” in nature. As The Age points out:
“On top of a possible 10-year jail term, Griffiths could be fined $US500,000. (By way of comparison, the average sentence for rape in Victoria is six years and 10 months.”
As we’ve seen with David Hicks, it is only through public pressure that the Australian government reluctantly looks after the welfare of its citizens. Britain did not allow its citizens be held in Guantanamo Bay, and it seems that the US took note of this:
“Griffiths appears to have been singled out by US authorities. British-based members of Drink or Die were reportedly tried in Britain.”
So not only does Griffiths face jail, he faces it in the US, away from his family. So too would anyone who has made a pirated version of, say, Photoshop for their friend:
“Any Australian who has pirated software worth more than $US1000 could be subject to the same extradition process as Griffiths was.”
Scary.
[Note: all quotes above are from The Age article mentioned above]
“Copyright Hicks” is pretty much exactly what I thought – this case is so stupid. The thing in the authorities’ favour is pretty much that yes, he committed a crime – it is illegal, with criminal charges, under DMCA I believe, and he’s not going to be locked up in Gitmo – but that’s about it. Hicks’ case was less cut-and-dried.
However, the fact that the British members of the group were prosecuted in their home country and the Aussie wasn’t smacks of hypocracy.
I agree, Griffiths has committed an offence. He should be tried in the jurisdiction that he committed the offence in. Does the offence occur in the physical place the person and computer sat when they unencrypted the software and posted it online?
Arguably until we have some better jurisdiction to try offences that cross international borders, it is the country where the crime was commission from and that the alleged criminal is a citizen of, that should decide his fate. That place is AUSTRALIA under our Copyright law at the time, and not the law of the United States. Our representative and responsible government should not allow the US to prosecute us.
On policy grounds, I am still uncertain as to whether copyright infringement should have incarceration as punishment. Is the loss to society through infringement such that the state should take the liberty away from those who infringe? I still feel that this is more of a matter for civil liability; that those who suffer damage should sue for a remedy.
i wouldn’t disagree on that count :) But it is fair to say that prison is used as a deterrent too – if you’ve only got $5000 assets to your name, what matter if MAFIAA sue you for millions? You end up in prison, right? (setting aside that this guy is getting a fine as well).