I’m sorry, the spam filter ate your comment and I only discovered it today, along with two of my own comments - Akismet hates me, I’m not sure why. It’s always eating my comments.

What about KC’s comments that Griffiths is a “fall guy” for others and there are other more culpable individuals out there?

Another problem is that the way in which AUSFTA is drafted will make it difficult for Australian companies to develop their own IP…making it unlikely that we’d need a reciprocal favour in relation to a copyright thief from the US…

I’m not saying what Griffiths did was right (it was theft) but his offence seems less morally culpable, say, than Hicks, who may end up serving less time.

LE

FYI - above in one of my comments there are a few links to cautionary articles about the implications of AUSFTA and the IP section. The Australian government seems to have naively assumed we are “mates” with the US so they wouldn’t rip us off. However, of course the US is going to look after its own interests first (as it is entitled to do). We should have looked after our own interests better.

LE

Apply this to Australian law and it doesn’t hold up. It is not illegal to be a member of a WAREZ group in this country, which leaves them with a bare faced lie they called copyright infringement. In a response from Alexander Downer to this case he advised me that the Australian Federal Police never investigated Hew. WHY???

Hew Griffiths should not have been extradited. The current Howard government has bowed down to the US yet again, and in doing so have not only tarnished the soveriegnty of this country but have belittled the legal system. This case has set a very dangerous precident. I would ask people to at least have a look at the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the US. In particular the section on Intelectual Property.

That would be a sweetly perverse moment.

The main recent amendment to Australian copyright law came as part of the Aust/US Free Trade Agreement.

The other interesting fact in Hews case is that theDOJ and the Customs Dept had a paid informant in DoD. They paid him to solicit names and addresses of other members, as well as recruit members.

The main evidence against Hew came from the Americans who got busted and pointed the finger at Hew for a sweet plea bargain. What they didn’t know was that Hew only had a dial up connection, it would be physically impossible for Hew to have Downloaded and Uploaded what they claim. I think this was the main reason the copyright infringement charge was dismissed.

I find it unsurprising that their PR departments would not want their heavy-handed tactics publicized. This is why (in part) we have useful acronyms like the RIAA.

John, if you want to change over, e-mail me and I’ll tell you how to do it (it was very easy).

Bruce: yes, indeed. I was having a look at the Draft Bill which introduced the changes, and I noted that Senator Bartlett objected to it somewhat. At least someone was on the ball!

AUSFTA seems to have been skewed towards protecting US intellectual property rights, and the new IP regime could cause problems for Australia, according to the couple of academic articles I read online yesterday (here and here, as well as a Report by the House of Representative Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs).

Plus a whole heap of pages of extra amendments added at the last minute so as to get past the senate without much debate.