BEFORE he was extradited to the United States, Hew Griffiths, from Berkeley Vale in NSW, had never even set foot in America. But he had pirated software produced by American companies.
Now, having been given up to the US by former justice minister Chris Ellison, Griffiths, 44, is in a Virginia cell, facing up to 10 years in an American prison after a guilty plea late last month.
Griffiths' case — involving one of the first extraditions for intellectual property crime — has been a triumph for US authorities, demonstrating their ability to enforce US laws protecting US companies against Australians in Australia, with the co-operation of the Australian Government.
On what understanding of international law is this even vaguely appropriate? How can an Australian, acting entirely within Australia, be liable under US law? Why not extradite democracy activists to China? Or homosexuals to Saudi Arabia? Or Jews to Iran?
And what law is he alleged to have broken? The famously corrupt and flawed US copyright laws? You have got to be kidding.
Apparently now we Australians are all subject to whatever half-arsed legislation the US Congress passes. (Pity we don't get a vote there, eh?) Our Liberals don't even need to pass repulsive laws; they can just treat Australians as if we were governed by the American ones already.
But Drink or Die's activities did cost American companies money — an estimated $US50 million ($A60 million), if legal sales were substituted for illegal downloads undertaken through Drink or Die. It also raised the ire of US authorities.
Ah, so they've calculated this "loss" under the extremely credible "each instance of piracy would have resulted in a sale - a sale with no transaction costs for us" method. That's fair. And for that Griffiths is looking at 10 years in a US jail? He'd have been better to have brutally assaulted someone here in Australia; the punishment would've been less.
(That would have been a crime against an ordinary person, of course, not a US corporation. So clearly it wouldn't have been nearly as serious.)
In 2003, the US Department of Justice charged Griffiths with violating the copyright laws of the US, and requested his extradition from Australia. Senator Ellison signed a notice for Griffiths' arrest and Australian Federal Police arrested him at his home.
Griffiths fought the prospect of extradition through the courts for three years, in which time he was denied bail and detained in prison. He indicated that he would be willing to plead guilty to a breach of Australian copyright law, which meant he could serve time in Australia.
Why wasn't that good enough, Ellison, you pathetic puppet?
Ah, but our apparent US overlords were happy:
"This extradition represents the (US) Department of Justice's commitment to protect intellectual property rights from those who violate our laws from the other side of the globe," US Assistant Attorney-General Alice Fisher said.
Yes, and that's a good thing why precisely? Why is it a good idea for everyone* around the world to be subject to the whims of any crackpot government?
Let's be clear about this. Australians do not get to vote in US elections. We do not get any say in the make up of, say, their copyright regime. (As it happens, American citizens don't get much say in it either, but that's another issue.) So why should we be subject to it? If the US lobbyists can convince our government to implement their rules, and our government, technically subject to the will of the Australian voters, were to accede and pass such legislation, then at least there'd be some democratic basis to it.** And at least Australians would be on notice as to the copyright laws under which they were to be governed. But to extradite someone according the dictates of another country's copyright regime?
Only a Justice Minister completely undeserving of the title, only a thoroughly contemptible spineless lap-dog, could accede to such a request.
Chris Ellison is a
*Well, everyone unfortunate enough to live under a government which will quickly sell them out at the least justified, most unreasonable "request" by the US, anyway.
**Although clearly it would still be a triumph of corporate power over democracy, since the US copyright laws are all about grabbing control of the public domain and locking down content for hundreds of years, which only a shameless shill could pretend is in the community's interest.
