 shadowshackstrange daysPremium
join:2000-09-04
Sewell, NJ | the sky is falling So, when some terrorist gets his hands on an ICBM and blasts a US city from his home country (a country that does not make it illegal to shoot missiles at the US) he should not be held responsible because he's not an American citizen, nor did he fire the missiles from US soil? ICBMs are remotely operated and destructive tools, same as the servers this guy used to distribute pirated software. What if Australian laws do not view the offense and commensurate penalties as seriously as our laws do. The internet has changed the rules of the game significantly. A fact understood by this guy very well (you don't see him setting up shop here).
You get bombarded with spam everyday (if you don't filter it out) offering everything from pornography to penis enlargers to cheap (read: pirated) software. Child pornography is illegal in the US but may not be in the countries where such spam originates. If we had the opportunity to prosecute a mass spammer of child pornography should we pass it up because he didn't commit the act on our soil, knowing his country of origin would never prosecute because he broke no law there? Spamming pyramid schemes originating overseas, in a country where they are not illegal, are fraud when the spam is read in the US by someone who obliges then realizes they've been swindled. If a virulent, malicious virus causing millions of dollars in damage is sent by some kid (or terrorist) from a country with laws that view such acts as a minor crime (or no crime at all) is not punishable by US law, it may embolden copycats and severely affect the US economy. Should we not have the right to protect our interests abroad? That is what the argument is all about. It is not about your disdain of the entertainment industry or the software giants making more money than seems fair. Its about protecting our interests using established laws consistently.
I dislike the DMCA as much as you probably do. But somehow it was passed into law. The RIAA has consistently twisted and abused the law to intimidate parents and children, p2p network operators, software engineers, the scientific community, the public at large, etc. I think the RIAA is evil and the DMCA is a horrible law. But make no mistake, this is not just about the DMCA, the entertainment industry or software giants.
--
Please deposit any pennies for my thoughts in my tool points. |
|
|
|
| Take your post another way. Someone in America sets up a site pointing out of how bad the Chinese government is. Since it's on the internet it can be viewed in China and the guy is therefore breaking Chinese law.
Does China have a right to have him extradited? Does China have a right to censor American speech on the internet? |
|
shadowshackstrange daysPremium
join:2000-09-04
Sewell, NJ | As a sovereign nation, China has the right to block internet content from America, and they do. They can censor anything they want. Though, your American's site would not be available to the masses (?), it would be blocked. But they can't censor an American's speech as it is protected here in the US.
Of course China would have a right to pursue extradition (if they had an extradition treaty with us). And the hypothetical person in your example would have a right to attempt to block that extradition (like the guy in Australia) using the laws of the land.
Extrapolating from your example: As a sovereign nation the US has a right to protect copyrighted works, and they do. We can make any laws we want (such as the DMCA). The Australian allegedly violated US law and the US has the right to pursue extradition (an extradition treaty does exist with Australia). And the guy in Australia has a right to fight extradition (as he most assuredly is) using the laws of the land.
--
Please deposit any pennies for my thoughts in my tool points. |
|
| quote:
Of course China would have a right to pursue extradition (if they had an extradition treaty with us). And the hypothetical person in your example would have a right to attempt to block that extradition (like the guy in Australia) using the laws of the land.
So basically Free Speech is only protected if China does not have an extradition treaty they can twist.
The China extradition was only an example anyway. What the heart of the matter is that anyone who puts anything on internet has to make sure it's legal in all 192 countries or they face possible extradition and punishment. Not only that but it opens the door for people to go from country till they get a verdict they like. "couldn't get him extradited and punished in Switzerland, well I guess I'll try it in Greece"
quote:
Extrapolating from your example: As a sovereign nation the US has a right to protect copyrighted works, and they do. We can make any laws we want (such as the DMCA). The Australian allegedly violated US law and the US has the right to pursue extradition (an extradition treaty does exist with Australia). And the guy in Australia has a right to fight extradition (as he most assuredly is) using the laws of the land.
The DMCA is terrible piece of legislation that proves the incompetence of those in Congress 1998 and the incompetence of those currently in power for not repealing it. It shouldn't be enforced on anyone.
Not exactly related to the point you going for but I felt it needed said. |
|
shadowshackstrange daysPremium
join:2000-09-04
Sewell, NJ | I previously said the DMCA is a horrible law, so we are in agreement. But I also said it had somehow been passed, so we have to live with it ... for now (laws are repealed, struck down and legislated away all the time in the US).
How did you get: "So basically Free Speech is only protected if China does not have an extradition treaty they can twist," from what I said?
There is a difference between expressing free speech, such as, China has a repressive government, and stealing something. China could ask that I be held accountable for what I just said, but US law would uphold my right to say it.
I also agree that we live in a culturally diverse world with many forms of government and laws unique in many ways. The web is a worldwide phenonomenom that begs sensitivity to these facts. None of that excuses piracy, none of that precludes US rights to enforce US copyright law. The Australian in question took advantage of the global nature of the net to hawk pirated material to a global audience. He took a chance the distance the web created would shield him from US prosecution. As it turns out, the Australian government just might agree with the US and extradite him to the US to face charges. And Australian laws were used to determine if this man should face US prosecution. Why do you think extradition treaties exist? Governments understand that cooperation in such matters are in their own best interests.
--
Please deposit any pennies for my thoughts in my tool points. |
|
| said by shadowshack:
I previously said the DMCA is a horrible law, so we are in agreement. But I also said it had somehow been passed, so we have to live with it ... for now (laws are repealed, struck down and legislated away all the time in the US).
The DMCA is such an illconcieved horse pile it should be repealed. Pronto. Today. So no I don't think we should have to live with it. The fact we do as a shame against our government.
I also think those who passed it should be fined. Never gonna happen but it would be justice.
quote:
How did you get: "So basically Free Speech is only protected if China does not have an extradition treaty they can twist," from what I said?
Read your own words:
quote:
Of course China would have a right to pursue extradition (if they had an extradition treaty with us). And the hypothetical person in your example would have a right to attempt to block that extradition (like the guy in Australia) using the laws of the land.
How is my interpretation invalid?
quote:
There is a difference between expressing free speech, such as, China has a repressive government, and stealing something. China could ask that I be held accountable for what I just said, but US law would uphold my right to say it.
This isn't about copyright, and even if it was it would be about copyright violations not theft. This about whether countries have any say over what citizens or residents of other countries do on the net.
It's my position that a citizen should only be governed by the laws of the country they live in. Extradition should be reserved for when someone commits a crime and then flees to another country.
quote:
And Australian laws were used to determine if this man should face US prosecution. Why do you think extradition treaties exist? Governments understand that cooperation in such matters are in their own best interests.
Must we punish Australia with our own stupidity? How is it in the best interest of Australians to be governed by the pile of trash known as the DMCA? The Australian government appears to have failed it's people. |
|
shadowshackstrange daysPremium
join:2000-09-04
Sewell, NJ | . . . beating a dead horse . . . |
|
 MIRV
join:2000-12-01
Louisville, KY | reply to shadowshack
said by shadowshack:
So, when some terrorist gets his hands on an ICBM and blasts a US city from his home country (a country that does not make it illegal to shoot missiles at the US) he should not be held responsible because he's not an American citizen, nor did he fire the missiles from US soil? ICBMs are remotely operated and destructive tools, same as the servers this guy used to distribute pirated software..
Implying a nuclear strike is equivelant to software piracy as a basis for extradition is just plain wrong.
--
Capitalism and Democracy are mutually exclusive |
|
