Australian Federal Police Raid Major ISPs

sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 18:34 · Score: 0

Lucky I'm out of the country!

Oh wait.. here they are ...
*knock knock* ..
Whoisit?
It's Dave...
Dave's not here!

"Valuable" Music by kevinatilusa · 2003-03-05 18:35 · Score: 5, Funny

"According to sources, the wholesale value of the allegedly pirated music may be as high as $60 million"

Then again, the music could be mostly Backstreet Boys, Brittney Spears, and N'Sync, in which case the value of the music is closer to $60.

Re:"Valuable" Music by gid13 · 2003-03-05 19:34 · Score: 5, Funny

as in "i'd pay $60 for someone to murder these singers because i'd rather bathe in acid and razor blades than hear them sing another note"?
Re:"Valuable" Music by garbs · 2003-03-05 20:05 · Score: 1

because i'd rather bathe in acid and razor blades

Yeah, I'd rather bathe in a bath of water / iron salts, in a hydrogen gas filled room too!

Though nobody better have a naked flame in the room.
Re:"Valuable" Music by TopShelf · 2003-03-05 22:52 · Score: 5, Funny

I love it when they estimate the value of something like this. I remember from my college days when there would be a big pot bust, and the cops would say "x pounds of pot were seized, with a street value of $y," and after a quick calculation, we'd see that the cops are obviously overpaying...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:"Valuable" Music by ratamacue · 2003-03-06 00:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

What's really ironic about drug raids is that the "street value" they quote is a function of prohibition, not market economics. Government sets the price of illegal drugs, not drug dealers! The higher the level of prohibition, the higher the price of black market items. The more tax money they throw at the "problem", the more money the drug dealers can make. And the more money the drug dealers make, the better their chances of avoiding the law. It's a win-win situation for government, which profits not only in revenue but power over the people, and it's a win-win situation for drug dealers who are clever enough to avoid the law. The only losers here are the tax payers, who pay not only in tax dollars but liberty (including but not limited to ownership of your own body) and security (which decreases proportional to the violent crime stimulated by the black market).

Am I concluding that prohibition is designed specifically to benefit government at the expense of the people? You bet I am.
Re:"Valuable" Music by ChristTrekker · 2003-03-06 01:56 · Score: 2, Informative

This seems to be an appropriate follow-up to that. "Fighting drugs" is not the federal government's responsibility.

--
Constitutionally Correct
Re:"Valuable" Music by plugger · 2003-03-06 04:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

In the UK, I have seem the cost of hashish fall from about £120 per ounce in the mid-late 80s to about £30-£40 now. Partly that is a result of getting older, and therefore having better contacts, but I also strongly suspect that so much is getting through that the price has fallen through the floor. If it was legal, you can be sure that the tax payable would rise each year, just as they do with tobacco.

The only other market where I have seen prices fall as fast is in computer hardware.
Re:"Valuable" Music by SuDZ · 2003-03-06 05:20 · Score: 1

Maybe they only settle for the best stuff out there?
Re:"Valuable" Music by poot_rootbeer · 2003-03-06 05:31 · Score: 1

I will give $10 to everyone in a Slashdot thread about music copyright infringement if it can last 24 hours from the story being posted without a single poster mentioning "Backstreet Boys", "N'Sync", or "Brittany/Brittney/Britney Spears".

Jeez guys, give it a rest...
Re:"Valuable" Music by poot_rootbeer · 2003-03-06 05:36 · Score: 1

Am I concluding that prohibition is designed specifically to benefit government at the expense of the people? You bet I am.

Since you're so smart, maybe you can tell me how spending millions and millions of dollars into the War On Drugs and then spending millions more on the incarceration of people convicted of drug crimes translates into "revenue" for the government?

Face it, there's no profit to be made in law enforcement.
Re:"Valuable" Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 05:44 · Score: 0

When they add up the price they try and inflate it. Most of the time you see "big" busts it's around election time. Say for example you get busted with an 28 grams, they don't say oh it's a 'lid' thats $100... what they so is say, thats about 28 joints(gram each) at $5 each so arive at the street value of $140. Of course when they do this with pounds it adds up very quick.
Re:"Valuable" Music by mdvolm · 2003-03-06 05:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

It could be argued that the "revenue" to the government here is not monetary, but realized by the increased power and authority that are afforded by "War On Drugs".
Re:"Valuable" Music by TopShelf · 2003-03-06 06:04 · Score: 1

That would certainly explain the Krispy Kreme doughnuts...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:"Valuable" Music by Alien+Being · 2003-03-06 06:22 · Score: 2

The government collects taxes (revenues) to pay for these so-called services. Governement offices with nice fat budgets have been known to spend the money on perks for the fatcats.

Aside from tax money, some laws allow the gov to seize cars, houses, cash, etc. "You have two ounces of pot in your trunk, so you're obviously a drug dealer. We'll just keep your $50k Lexus."
Re:"Valuable" Music by ratamacue · 2003-03-06 07:35 · Score: 1

Let's review the simple business model of government: (1) You take money from some people, (2) you distribute it to other people, and (3) you keep a profit for yourself. Logically, variable (3) is dependent on (1) and (2). As (1) and (2) scale up, (3) goes up proportionately.
Re:"Valuable" Music by chimpo13 · 2003-03-06 07:53 · Score: 1

Everything is weighed for the "street value". The plant, the roots, the dirt on the roots....

I've been selling dirt that I'm claiming was around the roots of a pot plant for $150 a gram.

--
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Re:"Valuable" Music by ratamacue · 2003-03-06 07:58 · Score: 1

Yes. Also note that power is what allows government to take our money in the first place. The more power they have, the more they can take. But drug prohibition also represents raw profit. We have to view government as the business it really is -- driven by individuals motivated by self-interest, just like any private business. Government is nothing but a collection of unique, self-motivated individuals after all. When you expand your business into a new market (i.e. drug prohibition), you stand to gain. Of course, government differs in the fact that it can't lose on investments like a private business.
Re:"Valuable" Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 13:12 · Score: 0

Q. And how do you estimate the street value?
A. Well that's how much money we got when we sold it.
Re:"Valuable" Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 14:43 · Score: 0

why 60mill?

cuz it's a nice round large number to lie about
Re:"Valuable" Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 15:34 · Score: 0

A government is not supposed to be in 'business' to make money. It takes money to provide for the needs of the many, point blank, end of sentence. Deficit and surplus are signs of a badly run government.
Re:"Valuable" Music by morleron · 2003-03-06 17:42 · Score: 1

A wonderful assessment of the situation. However, you forgot to mention some of the other reasons why the "War on Drugs" is so popular with the government. There has been a whole infrastructure of people and organizations that have grown up around the "War on Drugs", each of whom has an interest in continuing the "War." Let's start with the Federal DOJ, they love the "War" because they can justify hiring more lawyers since "there is such an increase in the number of drug arrests."

Along with an increase in the size of the DOJ fiefdom has come an expansion of the police powers of the state. The government just loves being able to sieze the property of "suspects." AFAIK, they don't even have to prove that the suspect committed a crime before being able to sieze and sell any property that "may" have been obtained with illegal drug money. And let's not forget little things like civil rights, that have eroded under pressure from the "War."

Then the various police agencies have good reason to carry on with the "War." They get all sorts of new toys to play with; reasons to have SWAT teams; trained dogs; high-tech bugging gear, etc. Who'd want to give that up?

Then there are the drug "rehab" centers. They didn't even really exist until the "War" came along. Now they get all sorts of money for "treating" people with drug problems. A lot of folks have jobs because of the "War." People who would ordinarily have to get out and earn an honest living.

But, the biggest winner is the government as a whole. They get to develop more agencies, more budget items, more employees. But, the really scary thing is the precedents that have been set under the "War" that are now being used to restrict the rights of those the government decides may be "dangerous" in the "War on Terrorism." Many of the legal tactics from the "War on Drugs" are being used to detain, harass, and intimidate anyone that the government sees fit to view as a danger. The USA PATRIOT ACT is a direct out-growth of lessons learned by the government in the "War on Drugs." The police power of the state has increased out of all reason and it started when somebody decided that smoking pot ought to be a crime.

I'm sure that I've missed a few others that have a vested interest in continuing the "War on Drugs." Please feel free to add to the list.

Take care,
Ron

--
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
Re:"Valuable" Music by ratamacue · 2003-03-07 00:24 · Score: 1

A government is not supposed to be in 'business' to make money.
I agree. But the fact is that all governments are in business to profit -- by definition. Again, government is nothing but a collection of unique, thinking individuals motivated by self-interest, just like any other collection of unique, thinking individuals. What makes you think the individuals running the government are somehow exempt from the laws of human nature?
Here's an example for you. Every few years, congress votes themselves a raise of approximately $5000 a year. The citizens do not set the salary for congress -- congress they set their own salary. If the individuals in congress were not in it to profit, why do they vote themselves a hefty raise every few years? If you weren't aware, the average congress person is raking in upwards of $200,000 a year. As you might suspect, that's only the tip of the iceberg. Government is just as fond of using "company money" for personal expenses, i.e perks, as private industry (if not more fond of it, since they money they spend on perks isn't theirs in the first place!)
Re:"Valuable" Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 16:01 · Score: 0

also, drug prices rely on supply, i like in midwest, and people make meth etc.. out in the woods, so its really cheap here (i hear from friends, powders=dumb)
Re:"Valuable" Music by billstewart · 2003-03-08 10:27 · Score: 1

Wow. Hash isn't a common product in the US (high-potency marijuana buds being the local alternative), but I'm told the price of good marijuana here is about $300/ounce, with cheap Mexican ditchweed sometimes below $100. As far as taxation goes, it's easy to grow in your backyard.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Rev.LoveJoy · 2003-03-05 18:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

I admit my ignorance here, but why would the police actually "raid" the ISPs in question rather than just subpeona the information they require through the court system?

From the tone of this article it strikes me that the police suspect the ISPs of criminal complicity in regards to their subscriber's alleged actions.

Is this how it normally works down under?

Cheers,
-- RLJ

Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by silne · 2003-03-05 18:44 · Score: 2, Informative

They probably seized the servers in question for evidence. They'll be returned as soon as the forensic folks are done making a "tamperproof" copy. (Not the word I mean but it's nearly time to go home and I can't think.) Less disruptive to take the hardware and make a copy off-site and then return it than to try and make their equipment function on-site. Coupla days she'll be right mate.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Wild+Wizard · 2003-03-05 18:55 · Score: 5, Informative

they have gone through the court system the raid is when they turn up with the nice little court documents that says they can look at whatever they want

big corporates get the same treatment that your local drug dealer gets its called equality i know thats a hard concept for some to grasp
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by SQL+Error · 2003-03-05 19:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

It can happen that way.

I've actually seen this first hand (under slightly diferent circumstances). They don't charge in with guns drawn, but they do appear without notice, in considerable numbers, bearing appropriate warrants and court orders, and secure anything that they might consider evidence. Which may be your mail server.

The idea is to preserve the evidence, but the way they go about it is misguided and unnecessary more often than not.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-03-05 19:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Wouldn't be the first time the AFP have overreacted.

Just got done reading this. When it comes to computer "crime" they do seem to have the approach of trying to swat an ant with a sledgehammer.

They're also a bunch of racist bastards if the book is to be believed.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by JohnFluxx · 2003-03-05 20:27 · Score: 1

"They don't charge in with guns drawn.."
The fools! That gives us the upper hand.

MWHAHAHAHAHA
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Snaller · 2003-03-05 21:49 · Score: 0, Troll

big corporates get the same treatment that your local drug dealer gets its called equality

Sounds more like it should be called incompetence. A drug dealer is a criminal, an ISP probably doesn't even know what's going on.

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Maliuta · 2003-03-05 22:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sounds more like it should be called incompetence. A drug dealer is a criminal, an ISP probably doesn't even know what's going on.
I may be a little bit under read when it comes to the law, but here in australia I was under the impression that ignorance is no excuse. In fact I was under the impression that this was the attitude of courts world wide, can't image a court going "ahhh well you didn't know murder was a crime. Off you go then, and don't do it again.".
And drug dealers aren't criminals everywhere in the world :) hell they are legitimate business people in holland :)
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by drsmithy · 2003-03-05 22:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I may be a little bit under read when it comes to the law, but here in australia I was under the impression that ignorance is no excuse.
Indeed, and the whole principle of "ignorance is not a defence" was just dreamt up so power-mad authorities could charge people with breaking laws they didn't know existed...
This is not to say it should be a defence accepted quickly and at face value, but in a modern society with multitudes of complex laws (and exceptions) and with no compulsory formal education in those laws, saying "everyone should know the law" is a bit unfair.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Ninja+Master+Gara · 2003-03-05 23:27 · Score: 1

secure anything that they might consider evidence. Which may be your mail server.
Damn. Now those annoying "services logging on a dedicated logging machine" people have leverage.

--

---
When I grow up, I want to be a kid again.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Snaller · 2003-03-06 00:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

I may be a little bit under read when it comes to the law, but here in australia I was under the impression that ignorance is no excuse. In fact I was under the impression that this was the attitude of courts world wide, can't image a court going "ahhh well you didn't know murder was a crime. Off you go then, and don't do it again.".

Except there are differences(and not everything is murder). The postoffice is generally not considered to be guilty if someone sends a bomb (or anthrax) via the mail - so here Ignorance IS not only an excuse, but a just defense. Same with the ISP, depending on what has happened, they probably had know way of knowing what was going on. Of course it they had movies for download on their main page that'd be something else :0)

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by budgenator · 2003-03-06 01:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Gentleman, unfortunatly our Halon Fire suppression system activated, and has locked down the area you are in, this necessitates that all 15 of you share the 5 scott's escape air pack providing 5 minutes of escape air until the fire department arives in about 10 minutes, have a nice day....

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 01:08 · Score: 0

Or, in the case of Jon Johansen, his cel phone (where he did actually have a copy of DeCSS) and his toaster (where he didn't).
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by aborchers · 2003-03-06 02:11 · Score: 1

Seems to me like this matter hinges on the legal status of ISPs in Au. If they are responsible for their subscriber's activity, they should be aware of relevant law because it's critical to their business function, and ignorance would not be an excuse.

Is there intent of the Feds to prosecute the ISP or just to tear up their site looking for illegal subscriber activity so as to prosecute the subscribers?

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 02:41 · Score: 0

Do you know which DLL's parse stylesheets in Microsofts Internet Explorer? Please tell me :)
mshtml.dll, isn't it? should be in your \winnt\system or \windows\system folder.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by SN74S181 · 2003-03-06 03:46 · Score: 1

The resulting civil suit will take your business under.

The public outcry from the death of 15 police officers will make it necessary for you to move to a different continent.

Have fun.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by budgenator · 2003-03-06 04:29 · Score: 1

Sorry sick hummor I guess, Don't try that at home/work ect.
Anyways I'm sure even police don't come to an ISP as Big as Testra, kick in the doors and walk arround unescorted by someone that works there. It's not like crack dealers are going to flush the stuff when the cop's arrive. The article sounded kind of melodramatic by using the word raid, in reality it was more like "Do you want the original or is a back-up tape good enough?" when they were presented with the warrents.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by ajs · 2003-03-06 04:46 · Score: 1

I think the original poster was more asking why the article makes it sound like the ISP was being treated as an accomplice rather than a secondary victim. The ISP may have evidence, but showing up and demanding the evidence is different from showing up and "raiding" the ISP (which implies either that the ISP did not cooperate or that they were not given the option).

Usually, in the US, any individual or institution that was caught up in such a fray would be served with court documents. After that, they would be asked to produce the evidence required in the form required without delay or interference. That's not what we call a "raid".

In fact, the U.S. the Department of the Treasury (in the form of the Secret Service) has been seriously slapped down by the courts for performing "raids" against individuals (e.g. an ex-coworker of mine) and organizations (e.g. Steve Jackson Games) who ran buliten board systems (BBSs) in Texas in the late 80s. They essentially treated every BBS that a criminal had used as an accomplice, rather than simply serving them with subpoenas where the had probable cause to believe there was evidence to be had.

The "Operation Sundevil" case as it was known, was fraught with other problems (e.g. the SS had overstepped it's bounds), but you get the general idea. SJG was almost put out of business by this raid, and that's just not reasonable. They had no complicity in the crime, and ended up a victim only because of the investigation even though they attempted to cooperate.

If that's what happened in this case in Australia, I think the ISPs should sue the government for their damages. It's simply not fair or reasonable that organizations that attempt to (or would be willing to) cooperate are harmed by the investigation of another party.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by WNight · 2003-03-06 05:00 · Score: 1

Quite right. If the average citizens of a country can't understand a law, it's a bad law.

I think the entire legal code should be under fifty pages, should be written by the guys from Plain English, and should be taught to school-children. In fact, I think the complexity of laws should be judged by the percentage of people who understand the law. If you can't get 95% of people to understand a law (and remember them) you can't in good faith prosecute them for not obeying it.

There's a lot of redundant laws that could be removed and a lot of overly complex laws that could be written a lot better.

Then, if someone has graduated high-school you *know* they understand the law, because it's a mandatory course. And if they don't grad, perhaps they shouldn't be treated as adults until they do. (If you end up with more than a few like this, you know the course is too tough.)
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 05:33 · Score: 0

If you really believe that big corporations get the same treatment as local drug dealers, you are either living in fairyland or have been visiting said drug dealers too much.

Big corps have a great deal of infuence and control in local communities where they are based.

They are also generally considered respectible and as such get more opportunity to bend the laws until something big happens to blow up in their corporate faces.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by poot_rootbeer · 2003-03-06 05:39 · Score: 1

big corporates get the same treatment that your local drug dealer gets its called equality i know thats a hard concept for some to grasp

Other concepts that some people have a hard time grasping include "capitalization", "punctuation", and "sentences".
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 07:04 · Score: 0

Do you know which DLL's parse stylesheets in Microsofts Internet Explorer? Please tell me :)
Probably mshtml.dll. Why don't you check on MSDN?
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 07:08 · Score: 0

OK, here you go, takes like a second on Google: MSHTML Reference Why do you need this anyways?
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Daetrin · 2003-03-06 09:00 · Score: 1

I may be a little bit under read when it comes to the law, but here in australia I was under the impression that ignorance is no excuse. In fact I was under the impression that this was the attitude of courts world wide, can't image a court going "ahhh well you didn't know murder was a crime. Off you go then, and don't do it again.".
There is a BIG difference between ignornace of the law and ignorance of the crime. If you run over someone with a car and kill them, you will get laughed out of court if you tell them "I was ignorant of the law that says you can't kill people." However if you say "I was ignorant of the fact that the person was lying under my car when I pulled out of the parking spot" you've got a much better chance of getting off.
If the ISPs can prove that they didn't know what their users were doing, or even just show reasonable doubt that that is the case, then they should be off the hook. Saying, "We knew they were downloading copyrighted mp3s and movies, but we didn't know that was illegal," wouldn't get them anywhere however.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 09:36 · Score: 0

I think the original poster was more asking why the article makes it sound like the ISP was being treated as an accomplice rather than a secondary victim.

Well obviously they are an accomplice, though they probably claim to be unwittingly so.

I don't see how you could call them victims, they presumably are getting paid for their services.

Realistically, ISPs the world over have been pushing broadband as a way of getting MP3s and DivXs. It would be astonishingly naive to just presume that the ISPs in this case didn't know what was going on or had some compunction about profiting from it. What makes you think that is or might be the case? But but... they're big businesses, they muist be on the level?
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 13:39 · Score: 0

The funny things is, I had originally read this as "Austrian police raid ISPs" and thought it was an indication of the growing power the Fascist Party has in that country.
Re:Can somebody explain Australian law for me? by ajs · 2003-03-10 08:17 · Score: 1

An ISPs profit margins are directly tied to usage. The more bandwidth the sell that goes unused, the higher their margins. So, it a very real sense music sharing is hurting ISP bottom-lines.

But, that's not why they're victims. They're victims because it is impossible to give someone an Internet pipe and yet not allow them to abuse it. You can start censoring content, but that's a slippery slope, and you'll soon find thta you cannot handle the arms race. What exactly are these ISPs to do? Business hounds them, the government hounds them and other subscribers (who are not sharing music) hound them over lack of bandwith at the neighborhood level (because their neighbors are sucking it dry).

They're at a loss, and honestly doing all they can to stay ahead of the game.

It's kind of like saying that people who maintain highways are accomplices in illegal racing. They're not. They're in fact suffering the extra cost of maintenance and safety because of it.

wow by rigelstar · 2003-03-05 18:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Sounds so Orwellian for an American groupie country. Whats going on?

Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 18:46 · Score: 1

..America isn't Orwellian in the slightest of course :P

Let's all lock up citizen without charging them under the dodgy accusation of being 'terrorists'. The media won't question the fact that they must be traitors, especially if they're muslim.

Soon the Democrats will be declared a terrorist organisation. "Voting is a threat to national security" is the next step..

welcome to 21st Century capitalism.
Re: wow by Black+Parrot · 2003-03-05 18:56 · Score: 3, Funny

> Sounds so Orwellian for an American groupie country. Whats going on?

Orwellian is 'in' this year in the USA, so groupie countries can be expected to follow suit.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 21:37 · Score: 0

Well george orwell was british anyway my old sunshine-cocksparrow-fellow-me-lad-sonny-jim-jim.

Bloody americans.

"Ooooh, I believe the puppet on the left shares my beliefs."

"Well, ooooooh, I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs"

"Wait a minute.....ONE GUY IS HOLDING BOTH PUPPETS!!"

Yeah, thanks Billhicksnotclinton
Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 00:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

As a proud nationalistic member of Australia I just wanted to say, Right On.

We have a prime minister that has no problem with defying the wish of the people, because hey, he doesn't have to worry about next election. He's retiring. We have a opposition leader that even with the massive hits the government is taking in polls can't increass his prefered Prime Minister Rating. And we have a Communication Minister who I don't think even knows what a computer is!

Add this the new laws the nationial spy agency has got to crack down on terrorists (eg. the ability to detain without warrent) and the fact that if a member of ASIO does do something that is against the law, you can't identify him/her as it is a federal offence.

Add to this we don't have a bill of rights or anything similer.

Little "Jonny" Howard is a Groupie, The rest of us are just being taken for the ride.

Sigh
Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 00:44 · Score: 0

"Let's all lock up citizen without charging them under the dodgy accusation of being 'terrorists'. The media won't question the fact that they must be traitors, especially if they're muslim."

pfhhttt..the media??? you mean the democraps boot-lickers???

"Soon the Democrats will be declared a terrorist organisation."

Well,they pretty much are by definition and action...but we haven't gone down that road yet, even though you hoot and holler that we have...

"welcome to 21st Century capitalism. "

Yeah...right...Capitalism flew two planes into the world trade center...dumbass
Re:wow by Alien+Being · 2003-03-06 06:49 · Score: 1

"Voting is a threat to national security" is the next step.

Votes are already somewhat irrelevant as evidenced by our last presidential election. The people elected Gore. We all need to wake up to the fact that we are being ruled by a rogue government.

Repeat after me:

We the people...

Anyone with specifics? by johny_qst · 2003-03-05 18:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does anyone know if the ISP's were monitoring the users pipes? Or is this simply a case of 'If you left it in your user space on their machine you're up the creek sans paddle'?

--
Fnord.sig

Re:Anyone with specifics? by mcbridematt · 2003-03-05 19:41 · Score: 1

I don't think so. Otherwise my ISP would of killed me for doing a segmented (feature of GetRight) download using several hosts a long time ago...

This comes as no suprise. Software costs an arm and a leg here. Damn Aussie dollar. Heck, I bring a copy of Command and Conquer generals in my laptop bag to school, next thing, everybody want's a bloddy copy. Then the technicians claim it's a virus caused by the game when you go to get your laptop reimaged. (I know that's _not_ right)
Re:Anyone with specifics? by -audiowhore- · 2003-03-05 20:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am unsure of the specifics of this case, but I have previously done quite a bit of work inside the one of the Crime Commission offices in .au

The techos were quite proud of the fact that with a quick phone call to Telstra (and a warrant of some sort I imagine), they can mirror *ANY* broadband (read: xDSL or Cable) line to a residential home/apartment. At the back end, they have sniffers written by a major commercial company which are unavailable to consumers for purchase. I don't know the details or the level of the decode these sniffers can perform, but would imagine it is VERY good.

Apparently they have caught quite a few dealers and other small crims soley by using this.....

From all the news sources though, this sounds like a raid on ISP infrastructure rather than mirror of some users internet links.
Re:Anyone with specifics? by visgoth · 2003-03-06 01:46 · Score: 1

Software costs an arm and a leg here. Damn Aussie dollar. Heck, I bring a copy of Command and Conquer generals in my laptop bag to school, next thing, everybody want's a bloddy copy. Sweet! You've got a copy?! Can I have one too? :P

--
My patience is infinite, my time is not.

big problem here... by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · 2003-03-05 18:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why would someone committing computer-related illegal activities store anything on their ISP's servers? That's just begging for the systems administrator to find it themselves, and report you for something (assuming it violates their ethics code).

One of the strongest truths in anything that isn't necessarily legal, or could be interpretted as not legal, is that you don't leave any evidence that others can control. If you're really smart, you leave no evidence at all, period, but if you do leave something, make sure that it is in your control, and your control alone.

The other thing that I'm shuddering about is the possible downtime effects that this has on everyone else who uses the equipment for fully legitimate purposes. Suddenly, the possibility of server outages, network outages, and other miscellaneous service problems ensue, especially if a federal entity decides that equipment itself is to be confinscated as evidence, and they don't take care to properly handle what mess they leave behind.

--

IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...

Re:big problem here... by sweetooth · 2003-03-05 18:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

The last time I checked the majority of criminals weren't very bright. Of course when you start talking about "copyright infringment" most people don't even fully understand the laws and so are more likely to do something illegal ( or stupid ). Add to this the fact that most of your mp3 traders are probably not your most technically elite and there is a better chance these files are on the ISPs servers as well as home computers.
Re:big problem here... by sm.arson · 2003-03-05 19:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

One of the strongest truths in anything that isn't necessarily legal, or could be interpretted as not legal, is that you don't leave any evidence that others can control. If you're really smart, you leave no evidence at all, period, but if you do leave something, make sure that it is in your control, and your control alone.
That is a good point; clearly, most of these "criminals" are just young kids out there looking to make a "name" for themselves by hosting the most mp3s and warez. They don't take the extra precautions because they don't think they are commiting any real crime.

The real criminals (IMHO) are the scum that try to sell pirated CD-Rs and DVD-Rs in the backalleys of New York, and I'm 100% in support of corporate and government efforts to crack down on these guys.

I don't, however, agree with the RIAA's apparent goal of making a multi-million dollar example out of some 16 year old kid. Just direct complaints to the ISP and have them shut down the account after it's been proven to host pirated files. No need to bust down doors and put people behind bars...

--
for great justice, this sig has been moved
Re:big problem here... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:09 · Score: 0

Buffy makes me hard too.
But Willow makes me harder.
Re:big problem here... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:25 · Score: 0

If you're really smart, you leave no evidence at all, period, but if you do leave something, make sure that it is in your control, and your control alone.
A nice idea, but how many people actually DO this on the internet? Just about none. Do you run your own mail server or use the big box at your ISP? Does your ISP even allow you to run an outbound mail server? Many don't anymore.
All of the "residential gateway" companies from a couple of years ago went belly-up due to disinterest from consumers and distributors and the war of FUD over "digital rights management" being conducted by RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. Having a DoBox or something like it in the home would've saved these Australian families a lot of grief. So now we're left where us digitoids who have the know-how to configure a BSD or Linux box in our homes can actually have a somewhat secure internet connection but all of the shmoes out there are at the mercy of the Aussie Federal Police, or the US Dept of Homeland Insecurity, or whomever your local neighborhood jack-booted thugs are.
Rots of Ruck, dudes.
Re:big problem here... by supabeast! · 2003-03-05 19:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Why would someone committing computer-related illegal activities store anything on their ISP's servers?"

You assume too much. Some of the sleazier warez groups and many child porn groups share hacked servers. If someone at the ISP was involved in such activities, raiding the criminals first may have lead to destruction of evidence by the bad guy on site. By raiding the ISPs directly, the authorities get the servers, secure the hard disks, and then arrest the bad guys later.
Re:big problem here... by ATMAvatar · 2003-03-05 19:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

The other thing that I'm shuddering about is the possible downtime effects that this has on everyone else who uses the equipment for fully legitimate purposes. Suddenly, the possibility of server outages, network outages, and other miscellaneous service problems ensue, especially if a federal entity decides that equipment itself is to be confinscated as evidence, and they don't take care to properly handle what mess they leave behind.

This bothers me as well. There's a good chance that raids like this can do far greater financial damage than the piracy they are trying to combat. How many online businesses will be affected? What happens if valuable subscriber data is lost as a result of the raids?

It sickens me how the authorities and lawmakers bend over backwards for the recording/movie industry without so much as considering the negative consequences of what they are doing. I suppose this is just another glaring example of how you can buy "justice." It's only a matter of time before stuff like this happens in the US, and I wonder how many times I can look forward to lose 'net access because some tard using my ISP leaves his linkin park (or some other equally worthless band) mp3 collection on his webspace.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:big problem here... by Phroggy · 2003-03-05 20:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Why would someone committing computer-related illegal activities store anything on their ISP's servers? That's just begging for the systems administrator to find it themselves, and report you for something (assuming it violates their ethics code).

Every system administrator I've known who has done anything to crack down on users hosting illegal content has first checked to see if the user has any good MP3s or movies they don't have yet, and saved them before taking action against the user.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:big problem here... by Dillan · 2003-03-05 21:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

IF you go to any location where NATO or UN troops are operating you will find a "CD alley" either just outside or even inside the camp.
Last place they were selling DVDs for 5USD. why don't the RIAA go after the UN and NATO, that would be more fun to watch.
Re:big problem here... by boaworm · 2003-03-05 23:03 · Score: 0

There's a good chance that raids like this can do far greater financial damage than the piracy they are trying to combat. How many online businesses will be affected?

Most likely none.. Ever heard of backups ? I find it very unlikely that a major ISP would not have the user data backed up on tape. When the police grabs the server they just restore the data to another server taking over. Or even more likely, the ISP already have 2 or more servers running with the same content, so the only thing that happens is that things may get a little slow for a while.
If you really think that 1) The dont have backup 2) They dont have redundant servers, then I think you should not do business with that ISP again.

--
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Re:big problem here... by Topdeck · 2003-03-05 23:06 · Score: 1

This bothers me as well. There's a good chance that raids like this can do far greater financial damage than the piracy they are trying to combat. How many online businesses will be affected? What happens if valuable subscriber data is lost as a result of the raids?

Let's say I steal a $500 stereo. The government might spend $10,000 investigating my crime and imprisoning me. By your argument, "the authorities and lawmakers" would be better off leaving me alone.

It sickens me how the authorities and lawmakers bend over backwards for the recording/movie industry without so much as considering the negative consequences of what they are doing.

You disgust me. IT'S A CRIME. While you may look at it as a fairly innocent, no harm done crime, it is the law that distributing copyrighted material without the owners permission is illegal. We don't get to choose which laws we obey. Before getting a warrant, police don't think "I wonder what the negative consequences of this warrant will be?" They think "Someone is breaking the law. I should stop them."
Re:big problem here... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 01:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Ever heard of backups ? I find it very unlikely that a major ISP would not have the user data backed up on tape. When the police grabs the server they just restore the data to another server taking over

"Another server"? Oh, you mean the one they just have lying aroung doing nothing? Hardware costs, my friend.
Re:big problem here... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 01:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

police don't think "I wonder what the negative consequences of this warrant will be?" They think "Someone is breaking the law. I should stop them."

So, you think it's fine for cops to shoot a jaywalker? You think it's fine for cops to bust down the door and enter a house 100 strong, just to find a woman who has a parking ticket?

There are limits on what's reasonable. Taking half (or more!) of an ISP's servers effectively puts them out of business, punishing them for something they didn't do. Think of it this way- All those accused of warezing probably used the phone system to connect to the ISP. Should the cops bust into the local phone company's CO and haul away the switch???
Re:big problem here... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 01:59 · Score: 0

oh, you mean the redundant servers and tape backups that the police also confiscated?
Re:big problem here... by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · 2003-03-06 02:35 · Score: 1

" A nice idea, but how many people actually DO this on the internet? Just about none. Do you run your own mail server or use the big box at your ISP? Does your ISP even allow you to run an outbound mail server? Many don't anymore."

My ISP allows me to lease IP addresses from them for pretty close to what they paid for them, for a residential grade DSL line. I could probably also obtain a static IP address on a dialup from them, if I was that masochistic. I run my own services. In fact, the only thing that I do from my ISP is Internet Relay Chat, since if someone decides to play 'punt the user', they'll have a helluva lot harder time knocking someone off who's on an OC-48 (with admins who actually read the logs) than they'll have knocking someone off of a 640Kb DSL circuit.

--

IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Re:big problem here... by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · 2003-03-06 02:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Let's say I steal a $500 stereo. The government might spend $10,000 investigating my crime and imprisoning me. By your argument, "the authorities and lawmakers" would be better off leaving me alone. "

first off, that's NOT what he's talking about. If I read his post correctly, he's talking about collateral damage. It'd be more like if there was a criminal in the house next door to yours, and the government bulldozing your house to erect a barrier around the criminal. Damage was done to others in the name of the investigation by the government. This is a problem. We haven't even gotten into what the investigation itself cost...

" You disgust me. IT'S A CRIME. While you may look at it as a fairly innocent, no harm done crime, it is the law that distributing copyrighted material without the owners permission is illegal. We don't get to choose which laws we obey. Before getting a warrant, police don't think 'I wonder what the negative consequences of this warrant will be?" They think "Someone is breaking the law. I should stop them.'"

Have you looked at the music industry much? Popular musicians have albums go platinum and the industry, selling CDs for $17.95 each, says that the album isn't profitable and barely pays the musician anything. It's to the point that musicians like Moby are going on to talkshows on NPR and telling people that he'd rather them 'steal' his music and listen to it if they aren't going to pay the RIAA for it, rather than it go unheard. Others have come out and directly asked where the money is that the RIAA has asked Congress for regarding pirate-able media taxes, since the artists themselves haven't seen a dime from it, yet the RIAA said it was for the artists' benefit. The entire system is screwed to a pooch, and if the music industry in general isn't willing to adapt itself to meet new demands or new paradigms, it should die.

If you want to compenate a musician for their contribution to society, attend a concert of theirs, or send them a check for $20 or something as gratuity. Don't pay the RIAA any more for their stupid practices.

--

IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Re:big problem here... by ATMAvatar · 2003-03-06 02:58 · Score: 1

You missed the entire point. You're seizing assets of an arguably innocent company (the ISP), and affecting millions of innocent people (the subscribers), all in the name of *potentially* grabbing some information on a handful of thieves.

That's like shutting down an airport for a few days and locking everyone inside because you think there might have been a few criminals arriving on one of the planes. You potentially cost the airlines millions of dollars in lost sales, both because of the downtime and because of lost customers, and you potentially harm every passenger trapped in the airport, due to missed work and lost/damaged personal posessions due to the search. And, like with the ISPs, all the authorities had to do was ask for a passenger manifest from each airline.

That doesn't even get into arguments about how screwed up copyright are, but I'll leave the argument about what's wrong with IP law for another time.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:big problem here... by mdwh2 · 2003-03-06 03:14 · Score: 1

Let's say I steal a $500 stereo. The government might spend $10,000 investigating my crime and imprisoning me. By your argument, "the authorities and lawmakers" would be better off leaving me alone.

Will the Government compensate the ISPs for lost business, data and so on? If so, fine, but otherwise this analogy is invalid.

Before getting a warrant, police don't think "I wonder what the negative consequences of this warrant will be?" They think "Someone is breaking the law. I should stop them."

And I'd hope that they also wouldn't leave a trail of destruction to other people's property and businesses that was on a scale comparable to or greater than the original crime being committed.
Re:big problem here... by SN74S181 · 2003-03-06 03:49 · Score: 1

Just direct complaints to the ISP and have them shut down the account after it's been proven to host pirated files.

'Whack a gopher' probably gets tiresome and seems fruitless after awhile.
Re:big problem here... by Trespass · 2003-03-06 04:24 · Score: 0

I see. They're probably in league with the child-abduction Satanist groups and the Illuminati.
Re:big problem here... by HiThere · 2003-03-06 04:37 · Score: 1

My personal feeling is that it should die anyway. I don't care whether it can successfully adapt, if it won't die naturally, it should be killed. It corrupts the congress, it suppresses civil liberties, it commits ..., and talks it's way out of having charges filed. It sues to avoid accusations (note prior deletion). etc.

It is both evil and corrupt. We would be better off if it were sued out of existence, but it has bought so many laws that this is probably impossible. (Even if it hadn't, it can afford more lawyers than Microsoft.) But I can hope that it dies swiftly. And I refuse to participate in anything that they might earn so much as a penny off of. I consider the thieves that steal RIAA CDs more honorable than the people who make them. (That is faint praise, indeed, but it is the correct ordering of the set.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:big problem here... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 05:28 · Score: 0

Uhh..you've obviously never been raided. When the cops come to raid computer crap, they'll sit and argue whether they should take the playstation, vcr, and tv in the back room as evidence, too. What makes you think they won't grab the backups, too?
Re:big problem here... by sketerpot · 2003-03-06 05:29 · Score: 1

This is probably quite offtopic, but is it too improbable that the ISP itself might have done illegal software stuff? I know that it is certainly expedient to have a crack for Winzip if you want to put it on a bunch of computers and don't want to be bothered by the nag screen....
Re:big problem here... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 10:01 · Score: 0

We don't get to choose which laws we obey.

Of course we do, in fact it's our duty to.

You might very reasonably consider that these laws are ones that you are willing to obey but that is a choice, and decent people will draw the line at some point e.g. laws enforcing slavery, laws compelling the sacrifice of blue eyed babies. If there are any conceivable laws that you would refuse to obey then you recognise that you have a choice.

By all means say that these are laws that you feel should be obeyed, but pretending that that isn't a choice is cowardice.
Re:big problem here... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 10:02 · Score: 0

And here-in lies the thing the RIAA has yet to realize...like the SN74S181, the RIAA is becoming obsolete. There are other, more efficient (LS series) distribution methods available. Artists can now distribute directly to customers, bypassing the expensive recording industry cartel (and yes, they are a cartel...they've been convicted of price fixing after all). These efforts are the recording industry trying to hang on to a fast becoming outdated business model through creative use of legislation (I should think that the artists would like to retain their own copyrights!).
Re:big problem here... by SN74S181 · 2003-03-06 10:15 · Score: 1

The LS series is significantly slower than the plain Schottky series. It's a compromise thing.

This model where artists can distribute direct to customers hasn't been proven yet. Are these artists all getting money through PayPal?

At present that's not a resolved matter.

People all over the world are retaining their own copyrights. It's called 'leave it there in a vault where nobody listens.' When you start distributing your work, unless you're a big fan of Public Domand and/or you get your income elsewhere (i.e. the Richard Stallman 'endowment' revenue model).

Lately... by asparagus · 2003-03-05 18:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

It seems like the Aussies have taken a page or two from the US's "Big Book O' Terrorism" manual.

Any .au geeks that have lived in the US and would care to compare/contrast the two in terms of rights, both real and perceived?

Re:Lately... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 18:58 · Score: 0

As an Oz geek who has lived in the US (San Diego), my take is that the Americans have a greater percieved set of rights (courtesy of the Constitution), but in reality US society is very controlled and constrained. Oz has no rights in our Constitution, but anything not expressly denied is permitted.

US society is much more legalistic, and my impression was that ppl were very much bound to the rules. Oz is a conservative Socialist Anarchy...

Mind you, the way John HoWARd is going, Oz will soon be a smouldering crater as 100,000,000 muslims on Jihad wipe us out in return for his arse licking attitude to GW Bush, so it's all academic really. However you look at it the war in Iraq isnt Australia's war.
Re:Lately... by nathanh · 2003-03-05 19:07 · Score: 4, Funny

It seems like the Aussies have taken a page or two from the US's "Big Book O' Terrorism" manual.

No way! All Australians are prepared to combat terrorism. I've got my Government Endorsed Anti-Terrorism Fridge Magnet and I'm completely safe now!
Re:Lately... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:21 · Score: 2, Informative

To broadly generalize, Australians have no constitutional rights in the sense that Americans do. OTOH, most of them think they do, and the government mostly respects that belief, to a greater extent than the American government does anyway. They are then terribly surprised when their government decides to (legally) trample all over those non-existant rights, unlike Americans who are less surprised when the government violates their constitutional rights.

I hope this clears things up.
Re:Lately... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:57 · Score: 0

Mind you, the way John HoWARd is going, Oz will soon be a smouldering crater as 100,000,000 muslims on Jihad wipe us out in return for his arse licking attitude to GW Bush, so it's all academic really. However you look at it the war in Iraq isnt Australia's war.
So you propose that Oz lick Muslim "arse" instead in the hopes that they'll kill you last? If so, you're a bloody idiot. Muslim Jihadists don't want to kill you for Western Imperialism, cultural insensitivity or support of Israel. They want to kill you because you're not Muslim. PERIOD. Bin Laden and his ilk want you dead because you don't believe the same things he does. Get a clue.
Re:Lately... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 20:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've lived in Australia and the States... Australia is a country that teeters on a knife-edge between over-the-top socialism and an over-the-top police state. Pretty much the worst of both world, in my opinion. Australians have no constitutional rights in the sense that Americans do, and the only people willing to actively support civil rights are generally the same people who lean to the left. Libertarianism is not very popular in Australia, neither in name or in theory.

America, on the other hand, benefits from being a larger country, so more people can speak out when rights are being infringed... plus there are constitutional rights to infringe in the first place! That said, the lack of a decent social welfare network really drives a wedge between the rich and the poor - and i don't mean the Very Rich - i mean the people who can afford to go to university (which is probably most people reading Slashdot). And the impression i get is that the poor rarely bother registering to vote, so things are tipped strongly in favor of the rich. Not so in Australia where everyone is forced to vote (by law). But then that has lead to the horrible socialist police state i mentioned above.

In short, we're all fucked. Blame Canada ;-)
Re:Lately... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 22:47 · Score: 0

You got a fridge magnet?!

I just sent mine back with some white powder in it...
Re:Lately... by SN74S181 · 2003-03-06 03:53 · Score: 1

'Over-the-top socialism' is an 'over-the-top police state.' Don't pose them as polar opposites.
Re:Lately... by machine+of+god · 2003-03-06 08:42 · Score: 1

I've got my Government Endorsed Anti-Terrorism Fridge Magnet and I'm completely safe now!
Heh, at first I read that and thought it said government enforced magnet.
Re:Lately... by the-build-chicken · 2003-03-06 08:48 · Score: 1

I grew up in Australia, moved to Hawaii, then to San Fran, and now am back here...in the short time (bout 4 years) I was gone, I have seen absolutely dramatic changes...to the point where I truly believe I had MORE freedom in the U.S. Again, I have nothing in particular to back this up one way or the other, just my general opinions since I've been back. Most Australians don't notice this, because they live with it each day...but go away for a while, and come back...and it really stands out...it seems like we're adopting all the bad parts of American culture, and leaving the good stuff...so IMHO, we're really becoming a lot like america, without the balance that evolution brings (does that make sense? systems that evolve generally evolve with more checks and balances than systems that are adopted because you only adopt piecemeal?)
Re:Lately... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 09:14 · Score: 0

Fact is, the muslims we have in Oz are sane ones, not crazed. They came to Oz to escape regimes like the Taliban etc. If you read the Koran, you'll see that a Muslim is in fact obligated to protect Jews and Christians.

But if the muslim radicals (equivalent to the US religous right) decide that Oz is a tool of Satan(in response to HoWARd's decision to go to war despite the fact that a small minority of Australians think it's justified) and declare Jihad, then even the nice muslims will be obligated to run amok against us.

The world's largest Muslim nation is 250km north of Australia.

In terms of getting a clue, I speak a little Farsi, and have family connections to Iran and Iraq (not muslims), have read the Koran, and know many Muslims. I actually have a clue about the religon and culture, especially about the diversity within them. Do you have a clue outside your nice WASP box? Have you ever even traveled to another culture and got off the tourist path, or lived in an 'alien' culture overseas?

PS: The war in Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden, who is indeed a madman.

Re:Totally Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 18:37 · Score: 0

Hey idiot- wrong country.

Crikey! by stevezero · 2003-03-05 18:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Does this mean I have to give up my downloaded copies of the 'Crocodile Hunter'?

Re:Crikey! by G-funk · 2003-03-05 19:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Does this mean I have to give up my downloaded copies of the 'Crocodile Hunter'?

No, but good taste might.

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:Crikey! by The+Tyro · 2003-03-05 22:44 · Score: 1

Ay Mate... that's the Largest(TM) and Most-Dangerous(TM) warez trader I've ever seen! 'ees a beauty!

--
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.

Heh by strider44 · 2003-03-05 18:46 · Score: 1

Probably only if you're on an Australian ISP - lol just call it a backup. *shrug* Kazaa is allowed apparently.

What I think would have happened is by strider44 · 2003-03-05 18:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

that the ISPs were accessed without prior warning and traffic monitored for a small amount of time, and previous traffic recorded, as well as reviewing all of the websites held on the server. As I understand it it is not unheard of in America either.

Copyrighted Material? by ChibiTaryn · 2003-03-05 18:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

What I want to know is, what exactly constitutes "copyrighted material" legally here in Australia.

I have a bunch of SNES ROM's and anime (series, music and movies) that have no licencing in Australia. I also have some PlayStation ISO's, same deal. The anime/game wasn't released in Australia (or in any PAL territory, with some of them), so the only way that I could get it was online.

If it were possible for me to have acquired this stuff another way, I'd have done it...

Is that kind of thing considered illegal?

Re:Copyrighted Material? by Mark+(ph'x) · 2003-03-05 19:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

IANAL but isnt copying media a civil matter, and only distribution is criminal?

Additionally I really hate these stupid numbers that are thrown around... $60million? Yeah maybe... but if i copy a few gig of mp3 off a friend i am NOT ripping the ARIA off for $200000 bucks. Maybe I will not buy a couple of CD's. Sure the record company loses $60. But seriously... these guys with 200 gig of mp3 are hardly likely to have gone and bought it all if they couldntve downloaded it :P

What college student can afford a few million dollars in music?

--
those who control the past, control the future. those who control the present, control the past.
Re:Copyrighted Material? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:39 · Score: 0

Thanks to the Geneva Convention, something that's copyrighted in one country is copyrighted in practically every country. The fact that some works are not available legally makes no difference (unfortunately).
Re:Copyrighted Material? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:41 · Score: 1, Informative

Can't remember my l/p, so just posting as an AC.

As someone who just returned from an IP based workshop with half a dozen IP experts (lawyers included), it doesn't matter where the source of copyrighted material originates, according to the Berne convention, copyright is automatically granted to original works.

Therefore just because it isn't commercially available in your area doesn't mean the copyright holder gives up their rights. You still must contact the holder directly to get permission to use/reproduce their work. Otherwise you are infringing upon their copyrights.
Re:Copyrighted Material? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:53 · Score: 0

"The anime/game wasn't released in Australia (or in any PAL territory, with some of them), so the only way that I could get it was online."

Perhaps you could import your DVD's and use smart ripper to extract them to your computer.
It beats digging through the dumps.
Re:Copyrighted Material? by BadDoggie · 2003-03-05 19:54 · Score: 1, Informative

You're thinking of the Berne Convention [for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, as amended]. The Geneva Convention is the one that says the U.S. can't do what it's currently doing on Guantanamo.
Both are scraps of paper that any country can pretty much choose to ignore at any time. The U.S. both enforces and ignores these treaties as it sees fit, depending on the mood.
Re:Copyrighted Material? by mr_tenor · 2003-03-05 20:03 · Score: 5, Informative

copyright.org.au

http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070. pd f

I was shocked to find out that ripping your "own" cds isn't permitted. Maybe there are some other wierd rules.
Re:Copyrighted Material? by julesdoak · 2003-03-05 20:14 · Score: 5, Informative

It's all illegal unfortunately. It's protected overseas so it's protected here.
You can't legally get it. Morally, it's up to you. You aren't likely to get sued in Australia if no one has a local license for it, so you might be safe.
2 things to remember about our sunburnt country - you have no privacy and there is no such thing as fair use here.

Here is some more info on Australian Copyright
Reciprocal agreements http://www.copyright.com.au/copying_overseas.htm
Useful sites
http://www.copyright.org.au
http://www.copyright.com.au
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au
AGD Copyright Law Branch
AGD Copyright Law Review Committee
Re:Copyrighted Material? by notb4dinner · 2003-03-05 20:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

2 things to remember about our sunburnt country ... there is no such thing as fair use here.

Correct. But as I understand it we do have 'fair trading' and it's essentially the same concept as US 'fair use'.
Re:Copyrighted Material? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 20:52 · Score: 0

Yes. The theory is if you want to watch an NTSC movie you buy both the movie and an NTSC television from overseas, then pay import duty as it comes in.
Re:Copyrighted Material? by mattax · 2003-03-05 22:45 · Score: 1

So the fact all new TVs are multistandard means nothing then?

Or is that all TVs in Oz are imported?

(And old PAL TVs can display NTSC fine in B&W if you play with the sync...)
Re:Copyrighted Material? by Froggy · 2003-03-06 01:21 · Score: 1

Yes, we do have fair trading legislation, which protects us (in theory) against being ripped off: for example, you're not allowed to make misleading claims in advertising.

The US concept of "fair use", as it applies to copyright law, is that you can make copies of things you legally own for your own personal use. Australian copyright law does allow some fair use exceptions, but "personal use" isn't one of them -- research, review, news, and legal advice are the only reasons you're allowed to make copies here.

That's just our print media copyright laws though. Our software laws rock: we have a legal right to reverse-engineer if that's the only way to ensure interoperability, for example. I asked some friends of mine who own a slimp3 component MP3 player what their take on the legal situation was, and they told me that as far as they were concerned, digital media came under the same laws as software and that it's legal to make a copy of software in order to render it usable (this is the legislation that lets you copy a program into memory before you run it -- betcha didn't know that right needed to be granted to you explicitly...)

EMI Australia's website, though, says different: MP3 ripping is illegal in Australia, they reckon, and although it's OK to own an MP3 player, it's illegal to play anything through it unless, of course, it's yours and EMI haven't signed you yet. They also reckon they're unlikely to ever be willing to sell you legal MP3s, but they advise looking into some obscure format they call .WMA. Who'd've thought it?

--
It is a woman's prerogative to change other people's minds.
Re:Copyrighted Material? by Kanasta · 2003-03-06 01:59 · Score: 1

Call the company and tell them you want to DL the rom, and want to pay the author the $2 they woulda gotten in royalties. You didn't cost the co. any production/distrib/advertising fees, so maybe offer them $2 for a written letter giving you the license for it.

See what happens.
Re:Copyrighted Material? by notb4dinner · 2003-03-08 21:08 · Score: 1

hmmmm, yeah Froggy's right. Fair trading is a seperate piece of law, however I do beleive the terminology used in the 'fair use' exceptions mentioned above differs from the US terminology. 'fair dealing' perhaps... dunno.

Something fishy there? by Aropax20 · 2003-03-05 18:50 · Score: 3, Funny

It seems strange to me (as an Aussie) that our Federal Police would have nothing better to do than the legwork for a music industry lawsuit.

Chasing child pr0n-ography - yep.

Keeping Australia free from terror - yep

Those sort of raids are all about upholding current laws

But chasing up a bunch of mp3 downloaders?

Pull the other leg, it plays JingleBells.mp3

Re:Something fishy there? by cyril3 · 2003-03-05 19:12 · Score: 1

They do keep us free from terror ( pr0n is a state issue). But Copyright is a federal law and it does have criminal aspects I think. So its within their area of responsibility. As I said elsewhere I don't think this is a mp3 downloader issue. downloaders don't store files on servers as a rule.
Re:Something fishy there? by delong · 2003-03-05 20:18 · Score: 1

But chasing up a bunch of mp3 downloaders?

It's called copyright infringement, and its a criminal act. Disliking that fact doesn't make it go away.

Derek

Cops aren't just sniffing for drugs anymore... by skogs · 2003-03-05 18:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Now they can read whats on your computer screen! Whats next? Roaming through college dormitories in search of students downloading music and porno when they aren't over 21 yet? Do we need to bring a legal fiasco back into the mix? Did those admins that knew what was being downloaded really deserve to be locked up instead?

Wow. Search warrents for allowing people to download music...hope it doesn't trickle down to everybody.

--
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!

Re:Cops aren't just sniffing for drugs anymore... by Wild+Wizard · 2003-03-05 19:07 · Score: 1

in Australia your an adult if your 18 (but you don't get paid as such)

no definitely not!!! by strider44 · 2003-03-05 18:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

They definitely wouldn't have dared taking the servers for evidence - not only is it illegal without express permission but it'd disrupt Australian internet. You're talking about the three or four biggest ISPs in Australia holding thousands of websites!

Re:no definitely not!!! by silne · 2003-03-05 20:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

I work for a QLD govt department that DOES take computers and servers for evidence. If somebody's committed a crime, too bad. Investigation takes precedence.

My father was accused of having child porn on his hard drive. The police took the hard drive. It took him 3 years to get it returned. They don't care.
Re:no definitely not!!! by Ninja+Master+Gara · 2003-03-05 22:47 · Score: 1

Good to know the witch hunt is alive and well.

--

---
When I grow up, I want to be a kid again.
Re:no definitely not!!! by DancingSword · 2003-03-06 00:42 · Score: 1

Note that your first statement suggests that the accused automatically is guilty, yet the second suggests that that is merely assumption ( yet the seizure happened, and instead of copying it & returning it, kept it until forced to comply with the law ).

THAT is the problem: the law-enforcement ( or authority, and parents/church do the same sorta thing... ) is rigged to damage, as much as possible, anyone enforcement chooses to 'hit'.

NOT that accusations are sometimes false and sometimes true, OR that investigation can sometimes take time, but that obliteration ( of worth, resources, autonomy, rights ), and enforcement are used in ways that damage significantly more than necessary...

... for sake of leveraging more authority ... ( where's that crazy Jew, who laced-into hypocrites, and obstructed state-execution etc, when ya need 'im... )

( disclaimer: all body-entangled mind is/seems deranged, so expecting justice among physical world must, logically, itself be deranged, and therefore sanity cannot exist, right? )

--
Messages to/for me ( in me journal )

Australia equals try-hard US State by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 18:55 · Score: 0

For the past one or two years now, the current goverment (The Liberal Party, leader John Howard) has attempted to make Australia a clone state of the US. It has attempted to enforce police state style tactics and limit the freedoms of individuals. It has also tried to mimick fuct up US foreign policy. Basically, this wasn't obvious it was going to happen, but it _was obvious.

Re:Australia equals try-hard US State by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 20:57 · Score: 0

Don't think it would be any different if John Crean were in power. Anyone who's in power in Australia kisses American ass as far as foreign policy is concerned. And don't assume Australia is "the 51st state", because believe me, a lot of the things that have been done would never be done in the United States because they have constitutional rights. We do not, because the vast majority of voters decided to vote against a rewrite of the constitution in the recent referendum. Sucks to be us, huh?
Re:Australia equals try-hard US State by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 17:09 · Score: 0

Err you mean Simon Crean I gather.

Re:Totally Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 18:58 · Score: 1, Informative

No, it's the right country all right. Some major Echelon listening posts are located in Australia.

Preferred Name by B3ryllium · 2003-03-05 18:58 · Score: 3, Funny

I prefer to call them the Federal Austrailian Police, or the FAP Squad. *fapfapfap*

Re:Preferred Name by wawadave · 2003-03-07 16:46 · Score: 1

austrailian seceret service = ass????

ISP premium privacy services... by megazoid81 · 2003-03-05 18:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

If the legal framework allows it, there should be ISPs who offer separately secured hardware and better assurances of privacy protection and non-disclosure to paranoid subscribers who are willing to pay a premium for this purpose. I, for one, would gladly pay up for such assurances. Any other takers?

Presumably, there could be some kind of ISP credit rating to add accountability and prevent consumers from rapidly switching ISPs to circumvent scrutiny. Privacy premium Internet access could be granted based on records of responsible online citizenship and satisfaction on the ISPs part that the subscriber wouldn't do anything illegal and get them into trouble.

Would it be possible to convince ISPs to implement such an 'Iron Curtain' feature or would it qualify as aiding terrorists, like purchasing narcotics does? *sigh*

Re:ISP premium privacy services... by rainwalker · 2003-03-05 19:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Although it sounds like a good idea, that would make me even *more* paranoid...after all, which subscribers are you going to target for surveillance (assuming you don't have the resources to monitor everyone), the regular people, or those who opted for a "high-privacy" connection? After all, they *must* have something to hide!

What we really need is a better anonymizing service, or perhaps a distributed proxy system. When I use our university's internet connection, I set up an IPSEC tunnel between my notebook and my home network, as I don't want the IT people logging my browsing and watching for subversive sites (2600.com, etc.). It would be great if a tool was available to do this on a mass scale. Something like Freenet, but for short-term web caching instead. Encrypted communication between hosts with requests spread over a large number of peers, squid-esque caching, 'bogus' packets to defeat traffic analysis...feel free to let me know if such a beast exists :)
Re:ISP premium privacy services... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:47 · Score: 0

You can already sign up anonymously in Australia using false details and prepaid internet cards.

The only linkable evidence is phone records and login times.
Re:ISP premium privacy services... by flonker · 2003-03-05 20:25 · Score: 2, Informative

It exists. http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,53799,00.ht ml Wired had an article about it a while ago, and so did Slashdot. Here's the download: http://www.hacktivismo.com/news/modules.php?name=C ontent&pa=showpage&pid=19
Re:ISP premium privacy services... by jquirke · 2003-03-05 21:04 · Score: 1

Actually a decent way to protect your anonymity in Australia is to purchase a prepaid GSM SIM card, prepaid Internet (using false ID, or none - store people don't care), get a couple-year-old GSM phone with CSD/GPRS data capabilities, but old enough for the IMEI to be changable and you're set.

What about Kazaa? by strider44 · 2003-03-05 18:59 · Score: 1

Does it mean that the Australian authorities are now going to move against now Sydney based Kazaa? I wonder how long it'll take them to do that?

$60 million---How do they know? by release7 · 2003-03-05 18:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Estimating of the cost of infinitely reproducible 1s and 0s is probably futile and ultimately an exercise in the absurd. Journalists need to stop reporting such numbers as fact without explaining where exactly how this amount is arrived at.

My guess is that these dollar figure likely assume that every copy of a song downloaded results in a lost record sale so the record labels can cry "boo-hoo" all the way to the bank. However, just because I have the Rocky theme on my hard drive doesn't mean that I would have run out to the store and plunked down $13 bucks for the CD otherwise.

--

<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

Re:$60 million---How do they know? by Xxanmorph · 2003-03-05 19:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

You're right about that, "Police think that there were a whole lot of 1s and 0s" just doesn't grab headlines. But even if the numbers are total BS (and I expect they are) there is the underlying understandable concern that music swapping eats into sales. I purchased 80+ CDs before Napster, 3 since and I'd be curious if other people have done the same. If you've got to complain to the judge that people are costing you money you might as well go in with the highest number you can get away with. That being said I also think that the fact that the price of CDs and quality of the music would have me paying $10 per song I want is a factor.
Re:$60 million---How do they know? by WegianWarrior · 2003-03-05 21:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

My guess is that these dollar figure likely assume that every copy of a song downloaded results in a lost record sale so the record labels can cry "boo-hoo" all the way to the bank.

I download music too.. not from Kazaa but from the less know WinMX. I download - usually the 128kbs or less copy if I can find it - anything that I'm either recomended or has picked up on the radio as sounding interesting. Then I listen, decide weither or not it's worth my money. If it is, I make a note and keep an eye out for the CD... if it isn't, I delete the file
So yes, every downloaded song that I delete cost them a recordsale - but I don't buy records which I havn't checked out yet.

--
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Re:$60 million---How do they know? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 21:32 · Score: 0

Hmmmmm math time.

60 million$, (au or us?) ~$20/cd = 3,000,000 cd's worth

10 songs/cd = 30,000,000 songs

2.5MB/song = 75,000,000 MB = 73,242GB = 71.5TB

notice I chose conservative values in those assumptions.

they are not after just a few people here, or (more likely? you be the judge) exagerated $ amounts

40GB mp3's each, 1831 people
10GB each = 7324 people
3GB each (still more than I have) = 24,414 people (!!!!)

$60 million---How do they know?

probably using the same math they used counting cd-r drives recently, unless there is something much bigger than kids downloading mp3's going on here.
Re:$60 million---How do they know? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 02:41 · Score: 0

My experience is the exact opposite. Since Napster and the like I have bought far more CDs than before, simply because I have been able to sample a wide range of music.
Re:$60 million---How do they know? by SN74S181 · 2003-03-06 04:03 · Score: 1

In my experience some of the music that I end up liking the most is music that I don't like at all on first listening. I bring home the new CD and listen to it, and feel remorse at spending the money. But I've made a committment to it and I listen a few more times. Often this 'challanging' music is the stuff I end up liking a lot after a few listens.

With this casual 'try before you buy anything' method that everybody seems to think is so wonderful is fine for shallow 'pop music' listeners who don't want to hear anything that challanges them to think and/or expand their musical scope.

Then again, I don't listen to much 'pop' music with intent of ever making a committment to it. I don't stare at awe at the ads in magazines, either.
Re:$60 million---How do they know? by Phrogman · 2003-03-06 11:38 · Score: 1

I imagine the math is pretty simple:

Each song downloaded represents a lost CD sale (to the RIAA and its ilk), therefore if I download 12 Offspring songs (off the same CD) they count it as 12 lost CD sales (who cares who downloaded what, they did it 12 times right?). Thus I should have paid $19.99 Cdn * 12 = $239.88 /boggle

Either that or they use reporter math where you simply zero pad any dollar amount until it makes a number big enough to put in a headline.

Within my experience, if I download a song off the net and I like it, I usually buy the CD. If I don't like it, I delete the file. The only problem with this process is that the RIAA and its minions get all the money, not the artist who created it. I think the Music industry needs to be investigated by the same folks who currently handle organized crime - after all they already have the skills to investigate that sort of setup and the music industry is probably a more effective form of organized crime than the Mafia could ever hope to be (where the 2 don't coincide that is).

I have bought easily 10 times more CDs since I started hearing music off the net than before I did so. Perhaps I am an anomaly but I think I am less of one than most folks think...

Phrogman

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid

MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 18:59 · Score: 0

It's true, ASSHOLES.

A Tough Stance by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:00 · Score: 0

They could have not raided and just asked - It wouldn't have been hard considering Telstra's mostly a Government-owned ISP, but this is all about setting a tough stance against illigal music. There have been no real large raids in the past, and this is just the way of the Federal Police saying that they're not mucking around when it comes to this. They know that they can't stop the hardcore downloaders quickly, so they go after the entry Mom and Dad types who would see headlines such as "Music theives in trouble" and not download any music again. A scare tactic, but it does work often.

Scapegoat? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:03 · Score: 0

I imagine they will eventually raid some domestic homes and make a scapegoat of some unfortunate teenagers.

I think that should be "example", not "scapegoat".

Why Raid the ISP by cyril3 · 2003-03-05 19:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

A request through the Court system would usually be in the process of discovery after a charge has been laid. Even in the USA I think search warrants are served by police in the investigation process and seizure of the machines would only be contemplated where the person holding the machine might destroy evidence.

Raid is a strong word and in this case a little excessive I think. The report says te police turned up with a search warrent and computer forensics experts. I suspect they got the cooperation of the ISP rather than close down Telstra (which has i dunno 50% of the internet market in Australia) by taking away servers.

I always thought small fry p2p users just opened their home machines to the network. But there have been stories in the Australian papers recently that suggest that ISPs are actually hosting p2p fodder on their own account in order to stimulate traffic. Unless these raids are looking for this type of material or anon ftp sites or stolen space I guess the police are in fact looking at traffic logs a la Verizon.

Re:Why Raid the ISP by hughk · 2003-03-06 00:22 · Score: 1

But there have been stories in the Australian papers recently that suggest that ISPs are actually hosting p2p fodder on their own account in order to stimulate traffic.
I had always though that it would be in the interest of an ISP to quietly run a Kazaa supernode or two, maybe with some ed2k servers as well as a mthod of minimising their bandwidth. Not particularly legal, but it could seriously reduce their bandwidth costs.

--
See my journal, I write things there

Hell, we raided the library! by ihatewinXP · 2003-03-05 19:10 · Score: 5, Informative

From the American Library Associations website: http://www.ala.org/alonline/news/2003/030224.html# santafe I was horrified to read that a man was hamdcuffed and brought in for perfectly harmless (but anti-Bush) chat in a library. Read the article and shiver. This story along with the Patriot Act II http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/02200 3Winslow/022003winslow.html has me very scared for my basic rights. These scenarios are coming home fast, it's good to watch Australia and Britan to see what's in store.

--
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.

Re:Hell, we raided the library! by Badanov · 2003-03-06 01:06 · Score: 0, Flamebait

What a fucking idiot you are. You and the moderator should be ashamed of yourselves. Did anyone bother reading the linked article. The person in question arrested had made threatening remarks in an internet chat room about the president. Trust me, and let me say if someone logs onto a chat room and make threatening remarks about the president I will fall all over myself grabbing a phone to call the cops on the bastard. Why don't you make sure you post ALL the facts rather than sensationalizing a threat to the president? Making threats against the president in this age of fighting terrorism is a serious offense. I hope the guy gets sent up for it.

--
Dawn of the Dead
Re:Hell, we raided the library! by archen · 2003-03-06 01:42 · Score: 1

Mod this guy up and the parent down. It's a federal offence to threaten the president and has been for a while. You're free to insult the president all you want, just don't threaten him.

I actually recall that there was an incident in a highschool in the town next to mine where there was some kid who threatened the president via email (or something like that) and within 2 hours there were federal agents in the middle of North Dakota (ie - nowhere). Eventually they just scared the kid (by basically being there) and left. Now I hated Clinton too, but I certainly wouldn't have threatened him, because it's AGAINST THE LAW (and not worth my time).
Re:Hell, we raided the library! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 01:58 · Score: 0

O'Connor recalled saying that Bush is "out of control," but that "I'm allowed to say all tha

Did you even read the article? He was accused of making threatening remarks. Now since we all know that nobody in authority ever lies or even gets carried away with things there's nothing to worry about. The mere accusation is good enough for me.
Re:Hell, we raided the library! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 02:08 · Score: 0

It's a federal offence to threaten the president and has been for a while.

Yes it is, but think about it. Was this guy talking to Bush in a chat room? Regardless of what he may of said, was he *threatening* the president? A threat is something like: "I'm going to get you." Not: "I'm going to get that guy I've never met."

The latter is not illegal at all. You can talk about committing any crime you feel like. It does become a crime when you take any action (legal or illegal) towards those ends, but talking itself is not illegal.
Re:Hell, we raided the library! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 02:10 · Score: 0

"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he 'did it,' even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate."

......Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case against Bill Clinton, published 1998

Apparently you just can't say it about a republican president.
Re:Hell, we raided the library! by ihatewinXP · 2003-03-06 02:24 · Score: 0, Troll

In Soviet Russia the fucking idiots are you. Now I don't know if you were raised in Soviet Russia, wartime Germany, cartel ridden Colombia, or some other hostile regime where a man getting yanked (or in a later example: a child) for what is obviously harmless chat is the norm. One thing to look at is the fact that everyone knows it is against the law to even mention that the president might get a particularly nasty cold, we all know you can't threaten the president. Duh. What I didn't know is that our basic rights are being thrown out the window. If secret service agents watching a chat room (and at the same time the library) couldnt figure out right off the bat they were dealing with a non-threat then we are all in trouble, even all you AC's out there. You know I don't agree with you, that's why I am replying, but does my arguing the position of this "domestic terrorist" (who actually was just some Joe American) then label me as the same? If your not scared for your freedom of speech then your using the old false argument of "Well who cares if they enact law_X, it only applies to criminals." A regime like Dubya's is very paranoid about staying in power and threats from a variety of internal and external sources... Why? I thought he was making everyone happy and the world a better place. At least that's what he said in the state of the union and on the campaign trail.......
When its wrong to exercise your constitutional rights I dont want to be right (but if they keep me scared enough I wont say a thing).

--
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Re:Hell, we raided the library! by pauls2272 · 2003-03-06 08:04 · Score: 1

> If secret service agents watching a chat room
>(and at the same time the library) couldnt
>figure out right off the bat they were dealing
>with a non-threat then we are all in trouble

Hmm, most likely the secret service "agents" watching were an automated program that merely looks for certain keywords.

Privacy Laws by gratefully+dead · 2003-03-05 19:12 · Score: 0

Don't Australian citizens have some right to privacy? At least in America you can't have your computer searched without a warrant. Targeting individuals is the wrong way to stop illegal content from being downloaded. It hardly seems a big deal in a world with so many other problems. Anyway, to me digital media is just another form of evolution of technology. File sharing will never be completely stopped because there will always be a way (unless computers can't receive audio signals somehow).

Re:Totally Sad by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-03-05 19:13 · Score: 1

Not to mention that Australia was the country that actually admitted it exists.

Telstra website by upt1me · 2003-03-05 19:26 · Score: 1

there website http://telstra.com/ is still functionable, so they must not have pulled the plug on the server.

Re:Telstra website by Archon-X · 2003-03-05 20:04 · Score: 1

of course not- telstra is the monopoly - it used top be government controlled before it was priviatised, so it owns essentially 100% of the australian telephony infrastructure.

pull plug, aussie feds 'Go go hey wha is this thing on?'
Re:Telstra website by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 14:38 · Score: 0

Telstra provides pretty much all of Australia's telco function. Pulling Telstra from Australia would be similar to pulling AT&T, Bell, MCI, Sprint, etc all at once from USA.

Let's look down the road, shall we? by djupedal · 2003-03-05 19:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Authorities in [your country name here] today raided several warehouses, looking for beer making components in a widespread crackdown on home-brew that several large consortiums claim is responsible for annual corporate loses in the millions."

"Authorities in [your country name here] today raided several warehouses, looking for bolts of fabric in a widespread crackdown on home-made garments that several large consortiums claim is responsible for annual corporate loses in the millions."

"Authorities in [your country name here] today raided several warehouses, looking for metal forging tools and raw materials in a widespread crackdown on home-made bicycles that several large consortiums claim is responsible for annual corporate loses in the millions."

And keep in mind that your tax monies are paying for the police to take action to support these corporations as they reach further and further into your pockets - and your life. Think this is all a reach? Think again...

Re:Let's look down the road, shall we? by Motherfucking+Shit · 2003-03-05 20:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think these analogies are really accurate. Of course it's perfectly legal to build your own bicycle, sew your own clothes, and (in some places) brew your own ale. It's also legal to go down to your local music shop, buy a guitar, and make your own music. In all of these cases you're making a creation of your own, using resources you obtained legitimately. You aren't "taking anything away" from anyone or any company.

What it's not legal to do is hop onto someone else's bicycle parked on the sidewalk and ride away, stuff a pair of Levi's up your shirt on the way out of the department store, or walk out of the gas station with a few Colt 45s. And whether we like it or not, it's also generally not legal to share music.

--
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
Re:Let's look down the road, shall we? by CySurflex · 2003-03-05 20:21 · Score: 1

as cliche'd as these analogies and analogie shattering responses have become on slashdot on all the IP stories, I have to put my bit in here:
Authorities in [your country name here] today raided several warehouses, looking for beer making components in a widespread crackdown on home-brew that several large consortiums claim is responsible for annual corporate loses in the millions.
your analogies are flawed. If we were talking about people listening to home made music instead of commercial music, or even people listening to indie bands that make their MP3's available on the internet insead of commercial music, then you'd have a point.
Here is where I would take your analogy and try to fix it to make it work for this case. The problem is, IP cases DONT HAVE real world analogies, as this is new ground. This is why this is such a big problem and dilema in the first place.
Re:Let's look down the road, shall we? by djupedal · 2003-03-05 20:39 · Score: 1

I agree with the part about IP cases being new ground, perhaps.

I wonder if the Swiss banks convicted of holding stolen Nazi monies would work as a precedent....

Otherwise, the flaw is in your interpretation of my analogies, not the analogies themselves, since I left them open for just that.
Re:Let's look down the road, shall we? by sheldon · 2003-03-05 21:50 · Score: 0, Flamebait

There is a dramatic difference between creating and recording your own music, and copying that created by others. Halting piracy does not have any bearing on your ability to create music of your own.

What I want to understand is why morons such as yourself don't understand this distinction? Or do you understand and you just use bloody stupid analogies to distort the issue?
Re:Let's look down the road, shall we? by djupedal · 2003-03-05 22:45 · Score: 1

Yes.

Try repeating that to a record company exec, and then slap a mo-ron sticker on him. It's flattering to me...since no one named Sheldon has ever paid me so much attention, thanks.
Re:Let's look down the road, shall we? by sheldon · 2003-03-05 23:15 · Score: 1

Perhaps you do not understand English?
Re:Let's look down the road, shall we? by Xtifr · 2003-03-05 23:52 · Score: 1

I don't think these analogies are really accurate.

No, his analogies were not accurate, but on the other hand, neither were yours. Copyright infringement is different from rolling-your-own, but it's also different from stealing. When you steal a bicycle or a pair of Levis, the owner no longer has that property. When make an illegal copy, it's a copy, and the original remains unaffected. That's why copyright infringement is a completely separate section of the law from theft.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to make a good analogy to copyright infringement, because not much else is like copyright infringement.

Note by DiSKiLLeR · 2003-03-05 19:29 · Score: 3, Informative

The AFP (Australian Federal Police) is the Australian Equivelant of the FBI.

Also ASIO is the Australian Equivelant of the CIA.

I always wanted to work for the AFP or ASIO. But its too hard to get in, and you don't get paid enough....

D.

--
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.

Re:Note by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:54 · Score: 1

You need at least a 4 year degree in something technical to be considered at ASIO. They also do extensive background checks on you.
Re:Note by femto · 2003-03-05 20:23 · Score: 1

An ASIS is the Australian equivalent od the NSA.
Re:Note by nathanh · 2003-03-05 20:56 · Score: 4, Funny

The AFP (Australian Federal Police) is the Australian Equivelant of the FBI. Also ASIO is the Australian Equivelant of the CIA.

By using the acronyms ASIO, CIA and FBI you have activated the Australian Echelon System. Unfortunately due to budget cutbacks we cannot record your call right now. Please ring again between the hours of 9am and 5pm weekdays and an Echelon Recording Specialist will eavesdrop on your conversation. We value your information and look forwards to eavesdropping on you in the near future.
Re:Note by allrong · 2003-03-05 22:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Nope,

The AFP may share some of the FBI's cross-state and international policing jurisdictional powers, but I think their scope is far smaller, partly because our police forces are state based rather than county/shire.

ASIO is our domestic spying organisation, unlike the CIA which is supposedly international only and hence is more closely related to the FBI in that regard. (modelled on MI5)

ASIS is our international spy organisation. (modelled on MI6)

The Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) is the closest thing we have to the NSA.

--
What is the inverse of the Matrix?
Re:Note by mgblst · 2003-03-06 00:56 · Score: 1

ASIO had an add for employment in last Saturdays Advertisder, in the carrer section!
Re:Note by Tackhead · 2003-03-06 03:26 · Score: 1

> By using the acronyms ASIO, CIA and FBI you have activated the Australian Echelon System. Unfortunately due to budget cutbacks we cannot record your call right now. Please ring again between the hours of 9am and 5pm weekdays and an Echelon Recording Specialist will eavesdrop on your conversation. We value your information and look forwards to eavesdropping on you in the near future.
But if you're in a hurry, there's always...
"The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and ask for one."
- shamelessly ripped from somebody's .sig
Re:Note by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 12:53 · Score: 0

I always wanted to work for the AFP or ASIO. But its too hard to get in, and you don't get paid enough

And that's the worrying thing. There are generally only two things that motivate people in respect to a career:

1. Money
2. Power over others

If it's not the money then that only leaves one reason that people queue up to join such omnipotent organs of the state :-(

Oh, and don't forget what they say about power corrupting -- it's so very true.

P2P pirates are economic saboteurs. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:36 · Score: 0, Troll

Artists and labels adhere to business laws when attempting commerce. In exchange for following these rules, they have every expectation of being able to find out whether their business is feasible. Quid Pro Quo.

Intellectual piracy robs these entities of that pursuit. Happiness is not a right, but to be able to pursue it is. Pirates say that there is no loss encumbered due to downloading, that these people wuld have never bought the product anyway. Unfortunately that assumption can never be proved. It is Schroedinger in economic form. Piracy literally robs artists of the ability of finding out how many people would truly have bought their product. Piracy is tantamount to corporate sabotage.

I would like to see pirates charged with laws of this sabotage, and with P2P coders charged with RICO statutes.

Re:P2P pirates are economic saboteurs. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 23:35 · Score: 0

Really? Then how come it got modded down as a troll immediately, and has only one response, and that isn't even a bite?
Re:P2P pirates are economic saboteurs. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 01:50 · Score: 0, Offtopic

How do you define a pirate? What if a downloader is simply streaming a batch of files to the speakers, emulating a radio? Would you call that a pirate? Perhaps the downloader desires only entertainment deemed freely distributable. We are fortunate in the software world to have a strong culture promote and produce free operating systems; unfortunately, the music industry has a cartel to crush methods of producing and delivering free multimedia content. This is what I call piracy.

When an industry attempts to stifle innovation and the development of a culture, I would call that piracy. And from this news, they are doing a pretty good job of it too.
Re:P2P pirates are economic saboteurs. by stephanruby · 2003-03-06 04:26 · Score: 1

How do you define a pirate? What if a downloader is simply streaming a batch of files to the speakers, emulating a radio? Would you call that a pirate?
You mean like a pirate radio station? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Re:P2P pirates are economic saboteurs. by pod · 2003-03-06 06:55 · Score: 1

How do you define a pirate? What if a downloader is simply streaming a batch of files to the speakers, emulating a radio? Would you call that a pirate?
If the streamer pays the required fees and acquires licenses as needed, no, I wouldn't call that a pirate. The downloader has nothing to do with your example, it is the sender's responsibility to comply with the law. That's any all the major busts were WRT distributing, not downloading. Downloading is still somewhat a grey area.

--
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Re:P2P pirates are economic saboteurs. by jimstone · 2003-03-07 11:01 · Score: 1

Perhaps the downloader desires only entertainment deemed freely distributable.

The trouble with that is that it is the right of the copyright holder to decide what is and what isn't freely distributable. The law upholds that right.

As a musician who is not beholden to some contract or other, I own the rights to my music. However I then choose to allow free distribution of it via the web in mp3 form, as long as y'all keep the tags intact (in keeping with personal vanity 'n all that).

Personally, I reckon that in a few decades, the record companies may be completely irrelevant to the music industry. Success is often about having the right product at the right price, and for many - a free mp3 satisfies both of those parameters. Personally, I like to read the notes on the CD liner.. call me old fashioned
:)
-If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly. http://www.aotea.org/jimstone/sounds/index.html
Re:P2P pirates are economic saboteurs. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 16:03 · Score: 0

I like to buy cds of artists i like (NIN) for a collection, and i keep them wrapped, and listen to the mp3's

G'Day, You're Under Arrest, Mate by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:48 · Score: 0

Kinda gives a new meaning to the term "Down Under," doesn't it... Where the hell is Mick Dundee when you REALLY need him? "That's not a P2P Application. THIS is a P2P Application..."

Making examples out of people.. by SystematicPsycho · 2003-03-05 19:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Sounds like they're about to make some examples out of people. Seriously, kids, you're not going to get out of this one with a note from your mum.

Anyway, there is some footage of the raids taking place here metallicops

--
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold

They're targeting the ISP's proxy by sonamchauhan · 2003-03-05 19:54 · Score: 1

I reread an old Australian computer magazine article recently - it was an interview with the head of Australia's equivalent of the RIAA. In the article, he accused Australian ISPs of being in the piracy business on the grounds that their proxies were being used to store illegally downloaded music locally. He also said that the police's current priority was the war on terror, but when they got a little more free, they would raid ISPs.

I think the interview appeared in Australian Personal Computer magazine a couple of months ago. Don't have a direct link to the article handy, sorry.

Gooo aussies! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:56 · Score: 0

Making the world safe for capitalism!

Holy shit... by MoThugz · 2003-03-05 20:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the Article: FEDERAL police have executed search warrants on Telstra and internet company Eftel in one of Australia's largest investigations into alleged music piracy, which could be worth up to $60 million.

Wow... $60 million!

Assuming the price of a CD is $20, it means that the pirate has an MP3 collection of equivalent to 3,000,000 CDs!

Assuming each CD has 10 songs on it, then the pirate has 30 million MP3s!

Assuming each MP3 is about 5 megs... then the amount of storage required is 150TB!

Did they raid Kazaa's ISP literally... or is this just one journalist's idea of sprucing up what should have been a normal IP-infringement case?

--
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers

Re:Holy shit... by Archon-X · 2003-03-05 20:02 · Score: 1

large ISP? never even heard of this eftel of which you speak! [not slamming you, it jsut sounds like a government plan]
Re:Holy shit... by MoThugz · 2003-03-05 20:14 · Score: 1

Did you even read the article? It's the investigation's thats large. [not slamming you, but I've never heard of Eftel either!]

--
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Re:Holy shit... by poo203 · 2003-03-05 20:17 · Score: 0

Yeah I wish....CDs are about $35AU here. Thats about $70US.
Re:Holy shit... by Archon-X · 2003-03-05 20:18 · Score: 1

well, if they have 50,000 subscribers, from the article, you'd have thought someone in australia would have heard of it heh heh
you can see the aussie cops 'weeell, there is that ISP thing down the road' and off they trudge to raide the local 'internation snack place' [or some other lame acroynym[
Re:Holy shit... by danielrose · 2003-03-05 20:35 · Score: 1

Yeah I wish....CDs are about $35AU here. Thats about $70US.
No, it's about $18 US here. Seeing as 1AUD buys 0.61USD, not vice versa :)

--
i hate pansy republicans
Re:Holy shit... by poo203 · 2003-03-05 20:49 · Score: 0

doh....
Re:Holy shit... by thogard · 2003-03-06 01:14 · Score: 1

At AU$.12/mb that would cost ....18 million $ on bandwidth costs alone. I think someones numbers must be off.
Re:Holy shit... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 14:47 · Score: 0

You, and all replies are idiots... Think outside the square.

What if they found 1000 songs, with logs showing they had been downloaded 3000 times each. Totally conceivable.

Remember that they searched ISP's, not homes. Most info stored at an ISP would be for others to download, not what someone had downloaded theirself.

Also, to the idiot that can't conceptualise how to store 150TB... Look at some of the large robotic tape libraries. Of course if money was not an issue then you could consider something like a cluster of EMC disk arrays as well.
Re:Holy shit... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 16:22 · Score: 0

First, that's AUSTRALIAN $60 million, equal to about US $36 million.

CD's here cost $20-30, and you can assume that they are using the $30 figure to make it sound bigger.

The big distortion here, I'm guessing, is that they have assumed that each file can be downloaded by (eg) 10000 people, and that each of those 10000 people would otherwise have bought the CD.

With those figures, it's more like 1000 MP3s. I'm willing to bet it's a lot closer to 1000 MP3s than 30 million.

They've obviously read the "War on Drugs" manual for distortion of evidence.

Flame, maybe by noz · 2003-03-05 20:13 · Score: 1

But can't they find more productive ways to [waste and/or] spend our tax dollars. Teenagers with mp3s (or some other common "pirate" commodity). They've already trimmed education _more_ because of the war.

- Angry student ) :

Re:Holy shit... 2.2 Gigawatts! by flamelord · 2003-03-05 20:13 · Score: 0

Yeah, LMAO, I don't know how you store 150 TB. That's ludicrous. How long did it take download that collection.

$60 million? by the_proton · 2003-03-05 20:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hrmmm, that sounds a bit dodgy to me...

Lets think about it, assuming each song is worth $5 (a bit generous but let's be nice...), that makes around 12 million songs. With each song being around 3 MB, that'd be 36,000,000 MB... which is about 34 TB.

Now you can't tell me that any ISP lets customers have that much storage, and they would probably notice if someone, or a small group, was contributing to 34 TB of traffic.

Sounds like someone might be overestimating by a bit don't you think?

- proton

Oh so glad I live in a free country by rf0 · 2003-03-05 20:29 · Score: 2, Funny

I mean here in the UK it great to have no worries.

I mean we dont have the RIP bill that means you can be chucked in prison for 5 years if you wont tell police your passwords, and they don't even need a warrent

Or that on the average day you are caught on 100 different CCTV cameras

Or that its a police state but most people haven't noticed yet

Rus

--
Cheap UK and US VPS

Missing the Big Picture by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 20:30 · Score: 0

The cost of having one song hosted on a network is more than $5.

Not what I said. by djupedal · 2003-03-05 20:34 · Score: 1

Of course stealing is illegal. Did you stop to think who is stealing from whom?

I said 'down the road', not 'approaching fast'.

When these corporations get used to having the police act every time they claim loses, especially when they are as subjective as the numbers the music industry is throwing around today, what's to stop them from pulling the trigger to get the cops to act on something like market control, in the future. What's to stop this kind of activity if Coke Cola decides I've managed to replicate their secret recipe at home? If it's good enough for the scum record industry, it's good enough for the rest of corporate America, etc.

Think about it...please don't knee jerk react with an obvious 'legal this and legal that' comment, thanks.

Re:Not what I said. by forkboy · 2003-03-05 21:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Would you call the cops if you found out people were stealing from you? I thought so.

I don't agree with IP laws the way they are written and enforced, but as it stands, pirating music is stealing. Don't like it? Write your congressman so you can make yourself feel righteous.

Or, a better idea, listen to and support bands that don't use the RIAA-affiliated recording/publishing houses. In a capitalist country, only changes in the bottom line can bring about change.

Some knees can jerk both ways, see? One direction you have "But its the law" and the other you have "Corporations are taking over all our rights." I'm more inclined to the latter as well, but just being morally outraged is tiresome, I've just stopped buying products or services from companies or organizations whose ethics I do not like. I put my money where my mouth is, unlike the majority of /. who decry groups like the MPAA but still line up 6 months in advance for their movies.

In other words, come up with some better analogies. (Not so easy...nothing else is quite like our hydrocephalic IP laws)

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Re:Not what I said. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 02:03 · Score: 0

Would you call the cops if you found out people were stealing from you?

No- I'd track them down, beat the shit out of them, and get my stuff back.
Re:Not what I said. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 02:06 · Score: 0

as it stands, pirating music is stealing

Copyright Infringment != Theft

He is referring to this : by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 20:36 · Score: 0

Santa Fe Police Detain Library Patron
over Chat-Room Visit
A St. John's College Library visit by a former public defender was abruptly interrupted February 13 when city police officers arrested him about 9 p.m. at the computer terminal he was using, handcuffed him, and brought him to the Santa Fe, New Mexico, police station for questioning by Secret Service agents from Albuquerque. Andrew J. O'Conner, 40, who was released about five hours later, said in the February 16 Santa Fe New Mexican, "I'm going to sue the Secret Service, Santa Fe Police, St. John's, and everybody involved in this whole thing."
According to O'Connor, the agents accused him of making threatening remarks about President George W. Bush in an Internet chat room. Admitting he talked politics face-to-face in the library with a woman who was wearing a "No war with Iraq" button, O'Connor recalled saying that Bush is "out of control," but that "I'm allowed to say all that. There is this thing called freedom of speech." He also speculated that the FBI might have been observing him because of his one-time involvement in a pro-Palestinian group in Boulder, Colorado.

Earlier on the same day O'Connor was questioned, officials at St. John's--as well as at the College of Santa Fe and Santa Fe Community College--issued warnings to students and faculty that the FBI had been alerted to the presence of "suspicious" people on campus within the past four weeks.

Concern about threats to individual privacy under the USA Patriot Act has prompted New Mexico legislators in both houses to propose resolutions urging state police not to help federal agents infringe on civil rights. The resolutions also encourage libraries to post prominent signage warning patrons that their library records are subject to federal scrutiny without their permission or knowledge.

Decidely odd by ras · 2003-03-05 20:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Copyright violation in Australia is a civil offence in Australia, unless you sell the stuff. Search for the word "civil" here.

I know this with a fair amount of certainty, as I was on the end of a similar search warrant during the "drink or die" bust. At the time I was totally mystified as to why, after telling me they were going to search my work place for "copyright violations" and having a search warrant that said they could look for anything illegal under Australia law, they took absolutely no interest in the various CD collections we have, nor did they search any of the workstations for illegal software.

It turned out the target was a guy who used to work here and who did (briefly) have an IRC chat with drink or die after it had been infiltrated. That was how they got our IP. The cops were interested in IRC logs mainly, but I had cleaned up the servers ages ago. His house was later searched and the fed's did find his collection of 200 odd pirated movies. But it was just a hobby - he did not sell anything. I am presuming that is why he has not been charged.

It is a weird hobby if you ask me. It costs more here in Australia to download & burn a movie then it does to hire it, a lot more in fact.

Anyway, there has to be more to this than was reported in the article. For the police to be involved someone must be suspected of selling, or somehow otherwise getting monetary gain out of illegally distributing copyrighted material. Australia's copyright laws may sound lame from what I have said, but if someone is found to of broken the criminal law it won't be a slap on the wrist. They will end up in jail.

Re:Decidely odd by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 01:48 · Score: 0

This is what I'm thinking. At what point do the [insert big federal agency here] start treating digitized music like drugs in the respect of quantity. Ie, this drug user has X amount of ABC-drug. Obviously they have intent to sell it which now makes it a felony instead of a misdemeanor. Now relate this to digitized music. This user has 200GB of digitized music (and a CDRW). Obviously they have intent to sell. That's what scares me. You haven't commited the crime but you have the neccessary tools to do so, so they'll go ahead and convict you anyhow.

timothy got this one dead-on by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 20:55 · Score: 0

Wasn't it just two days ago that Slashdot warned us: Be afraid Australia, be very afraid!

Really music? by QueenOfSwords · 2003-03-05 20:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is it possible the MP3 story is a cover for an ongoing investigation into child pr0n ? Perhaps that's what the AFP are actually after but they don't want to tip off the crims, they go to ground very quickly.
There was that story on the news in Australia last night about concern for the whereabouts of a child depicted in a porn photo, those photos don't get out unless someone gets busted. These raids could be a result of that. Just a thought.

--
-- INTX Grouch. http://www.midnightblue.net

Re:Really music? by eet23 · 2003-03-06 03:54 · Score: 1

I just hope none of the pornographers are reading Slashdot, or the cops will come for you when their bust fails.
Re:Really music? by phorm · 2003-03-06 11:32 · Score: 1

Let's hope they didn't poke at the newgroup servers then. I'm still not sure how it works, but even the local ISP has had some newgroups with names that are to say the least "questionable" - though I'm not sure about the content. That includes both the above and warez, etc sites.

Interesting quote from afp.gov.au by djupedal · 2003-03-05 20:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The challenge facing those who would minimise computer-related crime is to seek a balance which would allow a tolerable degree of illegality in return for creative exploitation of the technology. At this early stage of the technological revolution, it may be useful for individuals, interest groups and governments to articulate their preferences and let these serve as signals to the market. Markets may be able to provide more efficient solutions than state interventions."

MOD UP PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 20:59 · Score: 0

This comment is dead-on. The fact is, copyright infringement IS illegal - like it or not. The theory is by making an example of a few people, less people will break the law. Yep, that sucks for the few people who get prosecuted, but they can't complain because they knew perfectly well they were breaking the law when they did it.

left hand to right hand "huh?" by djupedal · 2003-03-05 21:01 · Score: 1

Markets may be able to provide more efficient solutions than state interventions.

Re:left hand to right hand "huh?" by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-03-05 21:09 · Score: 1

Your point being?

Have you read the book? The Australian authorities appeared to be by far the most heavy handed involved. Thus the AFP aren't exactly renowned for their wise and steady policing.

"Hmm... Shall we catch murderers, rapists and child molestors today? Nah, fuck it, we'll spend the tax payers money to arrest some teen who downloaded the new Britney album... That will be please our corporate sponsors."

Face it, these days, law enforcement are little more than pimps.

Pretty insane by autopr0n · 2003-03-05 21:05 · Score: 1

I mean, this would be the equivalent of raiding AT&T or Qwest in the us.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

time out...we agree by djupedal · 2003-03-05 21:15 · Score: 1

? I think we're on the same side....that quote came off of their site, and it shows how one of their so called experts thinks the law could be used or abused. Yet, we see headlines about them raiding ISPs for christ sake. I think they are abusing their position...just like you seem to think... OK? Friends on this one?

cheese with your whine? by djupedal · 2003-03-05 21:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

So the fact that I buy directly from artists off the internet isn't putting my money where my mouth is?

I worked for the largest music retailer in America, and walked away on my morals. Mine, not yours or anyone else's. They are the real pirates.

The fact that the record industry told us CD's would mean lower prices than what we were once paying for LP's has proven to be untrue. Artists make less than 5% off each CD retail. The record companies steal from us and the artists and it's ok....we steal from them and it's actionable? Sounds like a double standard to me, and I see no reason to feel sorry for anyone that can't see it.

I've know for a long time that the music industry is stealing from me....funny, tho, I don't think the cops would be amused if I called and reported that kind of theft...perhaps if I told them you suggested I make the call, they might listen?

Re:cheese with your whine? by Xxanmorph · 2003-03-05 21:35 · Score: 1

I can see your point. When record stores forced me to buy all those overpriced CDs I felt truly robbed. Oh wait, I wasn't forced to buy anything. I thought they were overpriced so I didn't buy them. Capitalism my friend, if people will pay it, that's what they'll sell it for. They make it, you buy it or you don't. It's called economics, not stealing.
Re:cheese with your whine? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 02:08 · Score: 0

Capitalism my friend, if people will pay it, that's what they'll sell it for.

Exactly. And the large amount of P2P shows that people aren't willing to pay for it!

Grrr, reread article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 21:36 · Score: 0

24,000 people is still less than 2% of total subscribers.

They don't like it up 'em - Market forces that is by DrSkwid · 2003-03-05 21:39 · Score: 1

s'funny eh how capitalists love market forces when they support profitability.

mp3 trading is a supreme example of market forces in action, cd's are overpriced in anyone's eyes. If they were $5 (us) then it wouldn't be worth copying them.

Keeping them at $15-20 is an insult, it's no wonder people don't want to pay up.

shame about the aussies, they arfe so laid back in many other ways. How did they get such a dumb govt. Probably to pissed @ the beach to care.

I know I am (I'm in Aus on holiday 8)

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter

Explanation for non-Aussies by Goonie · 2003-03-05 21:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not only have we had really lame television advertisements about the increased threat of terrorism telling us to be "alert, but not alarmed" and very little else of use, the government has sent out an "information brochure" with a cover letter from the Prime Minister, containing information on what to do in case of a terrorist attack and fridge magnet listing handy numbers to call in case of seeing "suspicious activity" to every friggin' household in Australia, at the cost of 20-odd million dollars (the rough equivalent of a 200-million dollar spend in the US federal budget).

The brochures contain absolutely nothing useful, it's just the standard natural-disaster guff. The general reaction has been that it's a gross waste of money and an exercise in scaring people into sticking with the incumbent government.In fact, many thousands of people, myself included, have written "return to sender" on the wrapper and dropped it back in the post... :)

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)

Re:Explanation for non-Aussies by Snoopy77 · 2003-03-06 09:29 · Score: 1

But what I really loved about the brochure was the blue ink welcome and signature, really personalised it I felt. Made it seem like Depty Ditto signed mine personally.

Mine is framed and is hanging next to my wedding photos!

--
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis

They don't know how much by MegaFur · 2003-03-05 21:57 · Score: 1

I think whichever record industry(ies) we're talking about here just did a simple AD&D calculation:
1d10 * 10 million dollars.

They rolled a `6' so they tell the world: $60 million!

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

It is the equivalency of $60 million by Pofy · 2003-03-05 21:58 · Score: 1

Some of those songs were much more valuable. They are normalizing it to average music value and that turns out as the equivalency of $60 million. Ask RIAA or MPAA if you need more information on how to do it properly.

Re:It is the equivalency of $60 million by leonardluen · 2003-03-06 02:11 · Score: 1

sounds like a good idea! i always wondered how much my collection of pirated media was worth...

My experiences with Law & Carriers by harikiri · 2003-03-05 22:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

When I worked at a major carrier in Australia as a security admin, we had some on staff known as 'LELU' - which from recollection stands for Law Enforcement Lliason Unit. These were the people whom the different law enforcement groups would approach with warrants and requests for subscriber info. Then LELU in turn would approach the security geeks and say 'we need to know which subscriber was on IP address x.x.x.x at 10.30pm GMT+11'.

Not once do I recall a 'raid' of our subscriber info. The LELU process seemed to be a good mechanism for law agencies to work with the techs at the organisation.

--
Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...

DMCAs ARE CRAP by deathcloset · 2003-03-05 22:36 · Score: 1, Troll

you know, there is just something fundamentally wrong with the concept of opportunity cost.
I mean, I have downloaded some music, not by any means gigabytes as some do, but an album or two.
My point is this, I have never really bought music in the past. I have bought maybe 10, and thats maybe, albums in my lifetime (actually I did buy a bunch of records from goodwill [for sampling], but they were like $.25 each and I doubt any royalty came of it).
Now this was when I was much younger, years before my first mp3, and I eventually stopped buying any music...then I discovered napster. I was like, great!..but I still only used it to download junk like "the dukes of hazard theme" and "charles in charge". You know, things that I would never, ever had wasted the effort to actually order physically, but because I had access to them right there, I figured there was no reason NOT to get them.
now the record companies say that the downloaded music on my computer is valuble? It's just crap! Crap I thought was funny; crap I thought was gay; crap I thought was other crap and was pretty suprised with what crap I had actually gotten and failed to delete; and lastly, crap.
case and point: I would never have payed for any of this crap in the first place or taken the opportunity to get it so any appraisal of it's value and cost is void and null. This $60 million the industry speaks of is so bogus. They are talking like $60 billion dollars or merchandise has been stolen. But nothing is missing! the cd's are still in the stores, the bands still have thier PA's.
Nothing has been stolen. It's just been listened to, or looked at.

Re:DMCAs ARE CRAP by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 04:12 · Score: 0

Your writing style and presentation is, well, like crap.
Re:DMCAs ARE CRAP by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 09:57 · Score: 0

Let me first say that I agree with you almost 100%. But just to clarify, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept of opportunity cost, rather the concept itself is being misapplied in the case of record companies. For instance, if I own a home (aside from the one I live in already) and have a choice between running a business out of it or renting it out for $1200, my opportunity cost for running my business is then $1200, since I could be earning $1200 by renting it out.In this sense, the concept of opportunity cost cannot be properly ascribed to the record companies situation since the resource in question isn't really scarce (making duplicates at little or no cost). There is no real opportunity cost to the record company because nothing is forgone. In essence we pay record companies to make copies of songs for us - but at ludicrous prices. We can make the copy ourselves for next to nothing. If this were truly a case of "opportunity cost" then by the record companies logic, by ilegally copying the songs we now have the ability to make $60mm while they are simulatneously losing $60mm. So my question is - how many people feel as if the MP3s they own are the equivalent of assets? -the answe s/b close to none since the asset is uniformly duplicated. So if I could efortlessly duplicate the house mentioned above, my opportunity cost for running my business would now be $0 since I can also continue to rent the other house.

Sarcasm...about time by djupedal · 2003-03-05 22:42 · Score: 1

And if they sold them for less, you'd buy more...and since they won't do that, the market will swing and they'll have to find another flock of sheep to shear. Funny how capitalism works. Like I said, stealing from whom?

...and don't be so fast to call me friend. Try buying me candy and saying how nice I look in these pants first, ok?

A time to kill by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 22:45 · Score: 0

I think it is time tht people who are arrested for major copyright crimes kill a few music and movie industry executives. If you are going to spend the rest of your life in prision (5 years or so per count, and each "pirated" file is a seperate count), then one really has nothing to lose. (For those of you outside the US, in the US, you have consecutive sentencing, which means that if you commit more than one crime, the sentences are added together, so if you "pirate" 500 files, you get a maximum of 5 years times 500 files and a minimum of a year or so (minimum sentence) per file.)

I submitted this story earlier today & REJECTE by sneakybilly · 2003-03-05 22:45 · Score: 0

what's the go with this moderation?

i thought this was about something criminal by collapser · 2003-03-05 22:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

.."raided to [..] seek the identity of particular subscribers in relation to their activity and files"..

.."'declined to name' ISPs"...

like me, did anyone else think this was regarding child pornography, and not (as is the case) a trickle of users in the sea that is filesharing, arrested at the behest of record companies?

..priorities, priorities...

--
<B>note to self:</B> <I>post as html</I>

Equipment by t_allardyce · 2003-03-05 23:32 · Score: 1

If the police raid someone isnt it standard for them to take all the equipment with them? Otherwise whats the point of even going there, they could just phone up and demand the details? If they did take the equipment how does the ISP survive?

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.

giving up so easy? by djupedal · 2003-03-05 23:34 · Score: 1

That's the best you can do? Routine slander? Come on Shel, we're in public. Your reputation is on the line...get on with it. I can take it.

I'll even give you a choice of languages to pick from, including English, you can take a shot at me in Japanese, Korean, Mandarin and Cantonese. I've also been insulted in French, Spanish and Latin, so if you feel more comfortable in one of those, knock yourself out. Sign language? Barcodes? Raw Postscript? COBOL? Any of those work for you? I want you to have the best opportunity, because I want to hear something new. No tired rednecking and no sexual labels...those are too easy and you won't get points for something so simple. Take your time, this is fun.

Remember, I'm doing this for you, since keeping all that anger inside isn't good for anyone, and my karma can only go up by letting you vent, so get busy. I'm here for you, and we all feel your pain.

Re:giving up so easy? by sheldon · 2003-03-06 20:26 · Score: 1

It's interesting that this response was slightly more comprehensible than your last. However you still do not address the points of discussion.

I'm left with the impression that my initial perceptions of you were indeed correct.

Loss Estimates by rwise2112 · 2003-03-06 00:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

The record companies/RIAA and the like always equate the profit loss to the number of songs dowloaded. The fact is, people download because they can, and if downloading is stopped, people will just do without the songs. They are not going to buy everything that they would have downloaded otherwise.

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"

Pro-Stealing by Aknaton · 2003-03-06 00:49 · Score: 1

I think that it is interesting that this site is so pro-stealing. The write up for this article makes it sound like the person sharing files is an innocent victim but we all know that probably isn't the case.

Jerks who share media that they have no right to share are making it harder on those of us who do obey the law. In my opinion, raids are a completely legal option and probably should happen.

Re:Pro-Stealing by crazyphilman · 2003-03-06 05:45 · Score: 1

I know you and I are going to get flamed for this, but I have to say I agree with you. Sharing music, non-free software and movies is against the law (and correctly so); people who defy the law and share copyrighted stuff are creeps, especially when there are free alternatives they can share without restrictions.

Why would someone pirate a bootleg copy of Windows and take all that risk when they can share Linux for free, totally legally? Why would someone pirate music and risk the wrath of the RIAA when they can download and listen to small, local bands' music for free, and legally? I don't think expensive, RIAA music is better than freely-available independent music. And, why download movies at all? If you have a high-speed connection, you already have cable, right? Just watch it on your TV, or (better) read a book...

I guess I don't understand the whole piracy thing. I don't get why anyone would want to do anything like that. It just seems so bizarre and senseless.

Raids are to be expected. But I don't think ISPs should be punished for the actions of a bunch of jerks. I think the cops should work with the ISPs, giving the ISPs time to write up perl scripts to filter their logs for the data the cops need. It's not like a bunch of cops are going to be able to sift the data effectively themselves...

--
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Re:Pro-Stealing by Aknaton · 2003-03-06 09:07 · Score: 1

"But I don't think ISPs should be punished for the actions of a bunch of jerks"

You are right about that, I think. That would be like holding the phone company responsible for a crime committed or planned via the phone.

A possible solution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 01:11 · Score: 0

The record industry already overprices their CD's--artists get about $2/CD and the rest goes to big business. I love music but I can't afford to pay $15/CD, so what if the record companies *gasp* lowered their prices to a reasonable amount? The artists would make the same, the customer would benefit, I'd gladly give up mp3's for a reasonable alternative, and the record industry wouldn't lose $60 million in revenues from a couple of stupid aussies, and might even gain the billions of dollars worth of music that college kids download.

For $5/CD, would you be willing to make a compromise? I would.

Why are tax dollars being used... by Patersmith · 2003-03-06 01:23 · Score: 1

to prosecute something that is essentially a tort? Is copyright infringement a criminal offence in Australia? I don't believe it is in Canada, which, as I understand it, follows as close to British Common Law as Australia. Are the police now acting on behalf of the music industry?

If someone, say, breaches a contract I have with them, I can't just call the police, have them arrested and have their assets seized. It's up to me to hire a lawyer, serve them with papers, get subpoenas, etc, etc.

Read the book Unintended Concequences by John Ross by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 01:28 · Score: 0

That is why it may be time to feed the hogs.

The cops... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 01:45 · Score: 0

Don't they have terrorists and drug dealers to go catch first?

Re:Read the book Unintended Concequences by John R by DancingSword · 2003-03-06 02:03 · Score: 1

The book recommended by AC is Unintended Consequences

--
Messages to/for me ( in me journal )

Give me a break. by thatguywhoiam · 2003-03-06 02:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

big corporates get the same treatment that your local drug dealer gets its called equality i know thats a hard concept for some to grasp

I do have a hard time grasping that, mostly because of its extreme variance from the truth.

I mean, I don't even know how to rebut that. Its so painfully, blatantly obvious that large corporations get preferential treatment in nearly all matters, vs. private citizens (and yes, drug dealers). Tell me, when's the last time you heard about a corporate office tower being raided at 4 a.m. with flashbangs and shotguns?

Sorry, not insightful.

--
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.

Re:Give me a break. by Henry+Stern · 2003-03-06 09:36 · Score: 1

Considering that corporate office towers generally don't contain well-armed, dangerous people, I think that your point is not valid.

It's not preferential treatment. It is just common sense.

Your post is highly overrated.
Re:Give me a break. by Best_Username_Ever · 2003-03-06 10:51 · Score: 1

I mean, I don't even know how to rebut that

Perhaps the Simpsons can help.

Teacher: Homer, would you like to present your rebuttal

Homer: With pleasure, *zip*
Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 13:00 · Score: 0

corporate office towers generally don't contain well-armed, dangerous people

You sir, have obviously not seen the Matrix.

Read section 80 by cdn-programmer · 2003-03-06 02:49 · Score: 1

In canada it is perfectly legal to pirate any music you want. The copyright act was changed so that the right to copy is removed from the artist and transfered to the consummer. Its section 80.

I posted the links to this before.

Cui Bono? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 02:54 · Score: 0

Close. But upside-down.

High-profile child-porn busts are useful for extending government control of the internet.

In a captitalist society this also serves the interests of corporations.

Ask yourself - who does the control of information benefit?

Re:Cui Bono? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 07:05 · Score: 0

Hymie

Why Shouldn't Police Investigate Potential Crime? by reallocate · 2003-03-06 03:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

If the police have reason to believe that ISP servers hold pirated files (a safe bet), why shouldn't they investigate? If someone had a warehouse stocked with illegal booze, or drugs, would you expect them to look the other way? Or, better yet for this crowd, how about a warehouse full of Linux CD's containing code that violates the GPL?

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it's silly and naive to expect the police to alter their behavior because of your political opinions.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

RIP by Blue+Stone · 2003-03-06 03:11 · Score: 1

Isn't that part of the RIP Act, where you can be imprisoned for 5 years for not divulging your passwords an obvious breach of your right to silence, under EU Human Rights Law? I mean... am I missing something?

For that matter that part of your "rights" that are read to you by the police, where you're told that, "...you have the right to remain silent, however, if you do not mention now, something that you later rely on in court,..." this may prove prejudicial to your case (or whatever.)

I've always thought this was nothing short of a blatant attempt to intimidate you out of exercising your right to silence.
Maybe I'm just crazy. I'm certainly no lawyer.

Government drafts law that breaches Human Rights, Shock!
Story on pages 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 14

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce

vinyl by zogger · 2003-03-06 03:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

--I don't download mp3s or movies, so we'll get that out of the way FIRST.

When I was a kid, you had a clear cut choice in the record store, and that's ALL we had really was records. There was some reel to reel tape action, but basically it was records and the am radio. You could get EITHER an album on 33 size OR a 45 that had two tunes on it. I can't tell you how much of the albums were wasted space, so a lot of 45 "singles" got sold, even though the song on the flipside sucked.

Downloading and swapping accomplishes what the customer HAS ALWAYS WANTED but these morons REFUSE to get it. People do NOT want to pay for crap, it's called BUNDLING. They don't want to pay for CRAP they don't want.

If I go to the car dealer and order a new car, I got the choice to decide on my accessories. If I go to get a new bicycle, I got a CHOICE whether or not I want blinking lights on it, electronic turn signals, baskets, whatever, I can GET what I want. No fenders? sure. With mainstream commercial music you got NO choice. You can't easily preview, you can't find anything that isn't on the approved list, and if you get suckered into buying some "disc" you got no idea how much of that disc has anything you want on it or even if it will even play in your player!

Oh, listen to the radio to decide, because the radio will provide you a way to preview? No it won't, they play the same 40 top songs and have since I was a kid in grade school. NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN FACT IT GOT WORSE.

Anyway, I started boycotting paying for music when I had gotten several cassettes and noticed I really only wanted one or two songs off the things. I started even boycotting live music when the price of a ticket got to what was for me ridiculous levels, switched to "local" music at local smaller venues. I was in the mega concert biz a bit, I saw what the waste and greed did to people, it was wasteful and greedy, that's why humans have those words. Those industries are chock full top to bottom of coker and booze addled people who all got this paranoid delusion of grandeur that they are all worth this totally absurd amount of money. top to bottom and sideways. Ridiculous levels of money. The producers, the middleman, the pressers, the pr firms, the "stars" you name it, out to lucn on believing they are really worth these sums. Paranoid Delusions of Grandeur, expectations that they got some "right" to profits at obscene levels. Screw them!

The big names ain't worth it, the big middleman companies that constitute this business ain't worth it. IF they can cut their expectations down on what THEY think they are worth, and ALSO make it dog squat easy and simple for people to be able to preview and buy indivdual songs CHEAPLY AND EASILY, they wouldn't have any problems and would actually make MORE money than what they are making now.

Frankly, those people are just plain STUPID if they can't see this. VCRs haven't "killed" the movie industry, even though this was claimed. Cassettes didn't "kill" the music industry. The xerox machine didn't "kill" the book industry. Web forums where articles are discussed hasn't killed the online news business. What all these things HAVE done is to point out COMPLETELY unreasonable expectations of "profit" that some people get, figures they pick right out of their asses, then they DEMAND to get that profit. People deserve SOME profit from their work, everyone and their cuzzin leroy who is an "artiste" and their middle man skimmers DON'T need to be millionaires from these "efforts". If people really thought this stuff was worth it, they would pay for it happily.

It's the same with writingbooks, software writing,painting pictures, whatever. If people got over this sheer greed, they could see this. The "music industry" as it's run at the top by the corps who use the riaa as their front mouth piece need to buy a MUCH cheaper clue. What they are seeing is a righteous BACKLASH to entire generations of people getting ripped off by being charged way more than what this stuff is really worth, and now that the tech exists to SHOW what it's worth, they just need to deal with it. How their dollar gets divvied up with 'the artistes" is for them to figure out, don't ask the customer to do it! If these 'artistes' think it's ok to sign away their rights for cheap,that's their business.

EVERYONE works hard at their jobs, I don't see it written in stone everywhere that because you are such and such you can just DEMAND to be a millionaire. And by the RIAA controlling the so called "public" airwaves through graft and payola, by conspiring to keep cds artifically inflated in price, by all their other monopolistic practics based on GREED, they finally got the people fighting back and SHOWING them what their products are worth. 10 songs on a cd AREN'T WORTH 15$. They are worth MAYBE 10 cents apiece, something like that. Because they never were content with making a living, and instead conspired to have inflated paychecks, people revolted, used technology, and this is what the market can bear now. It's the RIAA and MPAA and the "artistes" they represent who NEED TO BUY A CLUE, and knock it off with extravagant millionaire lifestyles and false expectations for their "work".

I so DETEST both those industries that I watch very few movies, I stopped going to the movies, I stopped going to expensive live concerts and stopped buying pre-packaged music a long time ago,with the exceptions of already produced and used discs or tapes, and that's it, because the dollar I pay for a used tape or cassette or disk is ALL that "entertainment" is really worth.

And ditto professional sports for that matter.

Re:vinyl by morleron · 2003-03-06 18:02 · Score: 1

Wow!! Well said, my friend. However, don't overlook the threat that mandatory DRM poses to the freedom of all of us to listen to or watch what we want, when we want, where we want. The RIAA and MPAA remind me of the loggers in the NW or the fisherman of the NE who, simply because they'd always been fishermen or loggers figured that the government should arrange things so that they could continue to live as they used to.

Unfortunately, for the loggers and fishermen, they didn't have the deep pockets the RIAA and MPAA have, so the government paid them little mind. The real problem that we face here is the corruption of our political system by the sheer amounts of money that float through it in the guise of "campaign contributions." Until the voters of this nation decide that they've had enough of corrupt politicians who line their pockets with corporate largess to an extent that would make even a "Golden Age" politician embarassed, we have little hope of winning this struggle.

The RIAA and MPAA will get their DRM legislation and the hardware vendors will stop making general purpose PCs because they will essentially be illegal. Instead, everything with a chip in it will end up with DRM hardware and software and our freedoms will be that much more limited. It's time for the people of the U.S. to stand up and make the corporate toadies in Wasington remember that they were sent to Washington to serve the people not some corporation. Whether this will happen soon enough is really up in the air right now.

Just my $.02,
Ron

--
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
Re:vinyl by Technician · 2003-03-11 18:32 · Score: 1

Wow, well said. There have been a few albums that were mostly great. Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall as well as Styx Cornerstone.

An example of a great album with wasted space is the Beatles White album. Have you ever heard Revolution Number 5 on the radio? It was so bad it is never included on a jukebox. About the only people who have ever heard that track heard it directly from the LP and nowhere else. There was no reason to ever air it or put it in a jukebox. It isn't music. It was wasted space pure and simple. Let me know if you ever heard that track from a source other than P2P or directly from the album. Most of the stuff on the Beatles Abby Road album is good.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:vinyl by zogger · 2003-03-12 03:11 · Score: 1

--oh man, I have a terrible memory for names. I can remember tunes once I re-hear them, and go "oh ya, I remember that now". Fro 60's music some stand out, the stones albums were pretty much all good tracks. So I can't really answer your question, but I'll take your word for it on the white album. As to lyrics, I was born with deficient midrange and it's only gotten worse, nowadays I am still amazed, with better tech I can actually understand a lot of lyrics that I never quite "got" back when they were new. Kinda nifty really.

but ya, the tech exists now for the labels to sell songs for a dime, if they just did that they could stay in business and make a living. they don't want to make a living, they want to make an extravagant living in a non extravagant market. Tell ya, with the economy tanking and going stagnant, "entertainments" as a "must-have" for people will be changing. So will expensive vacations, over large energy hog houses that require 30 year notes, excessive driving, going out to eat, etc. I think the music and movie biz in for a severe shock within a year. People with NO JOB don't waste what money they have on movie and concert tickets and buying canned music. People who got sucked into dumping their spare cash for years into the "market" every friday afternoon to see that cash that used to fold turn into cash that now jingles are getting hip to this "stupid and weasteful decision" mindset, ie, not good to be that way or to have false expectations. I don't know what goon came up with this current US trading and immigration model, but I just am not convinced that losing millions of jobs a year to replace them with only half as many jobs paying only half as much money is really such a smooth move. It's a great deal for the guys at the tippy top, for everyone else it sure ain't.
Re:vinyl by Technician · 2003-03-12 04:43 · Score: 1

See if the lyrics ring a bell and jog some memories.

It's the track with someone saying
Number nine
Number nine
Number nine
Number nine...

If you acutaly listened to the white album, you would remember it.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:vinyl by zogger · 2003-03-12 05:02 · Score: 1

cool! ya, I remember that one! I think that was the one that the "backwards masking" guys got all het up about.

Good Thing Guns are Outlawed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 03:13 · Score: 0

It's a good thing that Australia has no guns. I mean considering how honest, upstanding, and respectful of the rights of the people that the federal law enforement is, who needs guns? There would never be a need for a revolution. The right to bear arms is just silly. Currupt governments don't exist. I'm ok you're ok. Let's hug.

Scapegoat? by ogre2112 · 2003-03-06 03:30 · Score: 1

How so?

If their breaking the law.. Arrest them.

If you disagree with the law, fight to change it.

Mod parent down by mdielmann · 2003-03-06 03:33 · Score: 1

And how are these the same? In each of your examples, there isn't patent or copyright law that applies to them.

Beer? Been around for hundreds (thousands?) of years. No laws against making your own. Duplicating the formula for Milwaukee (why you would duplicate an American beer aside) may be a different issue.

Clothes? Good Grief! Can I have whatever you're smoking? Again, unless I do knockoffs, I'm untouchable.

The bike joke is just as bad as the clothes one.

The thing you're overlooking is that, for good or bad, there is a law saying who owns the lyrics, the music, and the voice [not]talent of the material on those CDs. The RIAA et al can't crack down on indy music because they don't have any share in it! You can sing every Briney Spears song in your own crappy (or not so crappy) voice, and now you're only breaking the law concerning the lyrics and music. We've already covered what happens if you replace those two components, too (indy music), so let's not rehash that.

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 03:41 · Score: 0

Yeah well ummm like duh. Piracy is piracy, its illegal, and if the dumbass kids refuse to accept that, then let them learn the lessons of life the hard way. I have no sympathy for kids today that think being online means free software/music/movies, and behaving like crass little boors is acceptable behaviour. Time to take responsibility for your actions kiddies.

They use drug bust math by endoboy · 2003-03-06 03:47 · Score: 1

1)Assume that the arrestee has broken the cache of drug X up into individual doses
2) Assume the arrestee is the only dealer present at a very large rock concert, thereby coming up with the maximum selling price
3) Multiply #1 x #2
4) Issue press release

Do you understand what "scapegoat" means? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-03-06 03:50 · Score: 1

I don't think so. Those raided will not be scapegoats if they are guilty. It won't be "unfortunate" either...don't take the risk is you can't stand the consequence.

Re: well in Australia... by op51n · 2003-03-06 04:05 · Score: 1

There was a comment a few weeks ago on /. about how in Australia, you are guilty til proven innocent. So that would explain the police being fascists!

Made sure everyone knew too, very serious by twitter · 2003-03-06 04:15 · Score: 1

The article also said,

Earlier on the same day O'Connor was questioned, officials at St. John's--as well as at the College of Santa Fe and Santa Fe Community College--issued warnings to students and faculty that the FBI had been alerted to the presence of "suspicious" people on campus within the past four weeks.

Talk about ruined reputation. They post this "suspicious people" stuff and then lead the librarian out in handcuffs for alegedly threatening the president. He will never be able to live it down and most thoughtless people will assume he's guilty.

The whole thing creeps me out. It's one thing that the FBI would pay people to sit around and read chat groups, it's another entirely when they know exacly who posted what or think they do.

This has infringed on the first amendment. Anonymity is part of free speech and press. If you can't publish anonymously, there is no free press. Obviously, this man was not as anonymous as he thought and therfore the federal government has made laws that infinges on free speech and press. The result is that the internet will not be a place where people can voice candid opinion or exchange real infomation.

You ought to submit that as a story.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Some better analogies. by twitter · 2003-03-06 04:40 · Score: 1

"Authorities in [your country name here] today raided several houses, looking for Satilite Theft components, such as unautharized recievers and mod chips, in a widespread crackdown on Satilite Piracy that several large consortiums claim is responsible for annual corporate loses in the millions." (has already happened)

"Authorities in [your country name here] today raided several houses, looking for Free Software and mod chips in a widespread crackdown on unlicensed software that several large consortiums claim is responsible for annual corporate loses in the millions." (they all hate free software)

"Authorities in [your country name here] today raided several warehouses, looking for illegal wireless components in a widespread crackdown on pirate Internet Service that several large consortiums claim is responsible for annual corporate loses in the millions." (not yet, as the wireless mesh is not big enough, though government intentions are as clear as day)

"Authorities in [your country name here] today raided several houses, looking for pirate MP3 encoders in a widespread crackdown on music piracy that several large consortiums claim is responsible for annual corporate loses in the millions." (it is against the law to distribute MP3 encoders without paying a license fee)

"Authorities in [your country name here] today raided several houses, looking for illegal servers in a widespread crackdown on cable theft that several large consortiums claim is responsible for annual corporate loses in the millions."(has already happened for serving and uncapping cable modems against user agreements)

What more can you say? You already can't modify your own equipment, tell other people how to do it or sell means to do it, right down to copier tonners. If you can't mod it, you don't really own it do you?

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Irony is when a former penal colony..... by VinniTheGeek · 2003-03-06 04:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Irony is when a former penal colony known as a haven for outcasts and criminals creates and enforces laws to punish the outcasts and criminals.

Equivelants are rarely equal. by twitter · 2003-03-06 05:06 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, in the RIAA office of the Total Information Awareness Department, agent Beazbub reads this story and laughs to himself.

"Those hicks still use sneaker net, ha, ha. Search warrents are so 90s!"

Looking up with satisfaction he calls, "Monika! do we have the piracy database up?"

A bleary and somewhat pudgy young woman answers afirmativly.

"Hmmm, curt. Who said that one is easy?", thinks Beazbub as he punches a few buttons. A program with big ugly buttons apears. The agents smile comes back as he eagerly presses the one with a picture of Captian Hook on it. The smile soon fades and is replaced with something very different as the list scrolls:

LARS is FROM MARS
LARS is FROM MARS
LARS is FROM MARS
LARS is FROM MARS
You have been 0wned.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

What's Going on Down There? by ablair · 2003-03-06 05:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

What's been happening in Australia lately? It used to be known as one of the most open & welcoming societies. But now with increasing incidents like this, like detention camps for immigrants and the Australian government apparently falling over itself to out-ape the Bush Administration, it's quickly losing that reputation. Can someone from there explain? I can't see feds cracking down on mp3 trading as a result of the Bali bombing.

Re:What's Going on Down There? by Snoopy77 · 2003-03-06 09:37 · Score: 1

I hate to admit it but as a country we have seemed to become a lot more racist. Started with Pauline Hanson (who I will soon once again have the pleasure of not voting for) and has escalated since Sept 11. And the Liberal Party (the conservatives) have seemed to have swung further to the right. But as history tells us, in times of crisis (or percieved crisis) we tend to vote in the conservatives.

--
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis

Uhmmmm, not quite. by unicorn · 2003-03-06 05:34 · Score: 1

The reason higher levels of prohibition make the prices go up, is that the dealers are MORE exposed to the law. And more likely to get busted, etc.

Where you get the notion that their chances of avoiding the law get better, is beyond me.

--
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke

Re:Uhmmmm, not quite. by ratamacue · 2003-03-06 07:30 · Score: 1

Where you get the notion that their chances of avoiding the law get better, is beyond me.
Remember that drug dealers are in business. The more capital they pull in, the more they can feed back into that business. Drug kingpins in particular stand to benefit greatly from increased capital. If you weren't aware, kingpins invest very heavily in "R&D" -- because they know it will benefit them in the long run.
Avoiding prohibition is a complicated and high-tech business. The stronger the prohibition, the more revenue they stand to generate, the more revenue they can invest in avoiding the law, and hence the greater their chances of avoiding the law.

Already happened - see Mercantilism by pjc50 · 2003-03-06 06:29 · Score: 1

This sort of thing was common in the middle ages, when it was driven by the Guilds. The idea of a powerful group of people getting together to suppress competition is as old as business, and the problems it causes to the rest of us are why we have antitrust laws and the idea of free trade.

The risk, and the reward... by unicorn · 2003-03-06 08:16 · Score: 1

rise together. That's why the proceeds go up. The winners are getting a better payout, for taking LARGER risks. Not smaller.

If the profits went up, without an increase in risk, then more sellers would jump into the market, and drive the prices back down.

--
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke

Re:The risk, and the reward... by ratamacue · 2003-03-06 13:38 · Score: 1

The winners are getting a better payout, for taking LARGER risks. Not smaller.
That's exactly what I said. The stronger the prohibition, the higher the risk of entering the market, and the higher the potential profit. But the profit can be fed back into the business, where they invest in avoiding the prohibitionists. It's a cycle.
If the profits went up, without an increase in risk, then more sellers would jump into the market, and drive the prices back down.
Of course. But back to my original point, the black market does not operate on the same pricing mechinism as the legitimate free market. The buyers and sellers do not control the prices. Government controls the prices with the relative strength of prohibition. The stronger the prohibition, the higher the potential profit.

Australia sucks by iocc · 2003-03-06 08:29 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Australia sucks. Simply. Move away if you live there.

Re:oh my fucking god by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 08:48 · Score: 0

ARRGGHH! MY EYES!

Seriously, don't click the link above, it's a goatse pic.

must... forget... horrible... picture...

Re:Why Shouldn't Police Investigate Potential Crim by ZxCv · 2003-03-06 08:56 · Score: 1

Simple: because in Australia, unless you are profiting from the illegal copying of copyrighted works, it is a civil matter, not criminal. I didn't see anywhere in the article that mentioned that law enforcement had evidence of someone profiting (which, I believe, should be necessary to even get them involved to begin with). Now, obviously, if they had evidence of people profiting because of these actions, that would be one thing. But based on the article, it doesn't sound to me like that is the case.

--

Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;

"Unfortunate teenager" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 11:22 · Score: 0

With terrabytes of illegal (C) material stored on "their" servers? Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.

Re:They don't like it up 'em - Market forces that by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 11:57 · Score: 0

No the way we got this government was Sept. 11 and getting the racists on board. Our elections were close to september 11. Pretty much all governments were given a huge approval boost after that. Then we had the M.S. Tampa incident. A large percent of the population having just seen the world trade centre, were afraid at the thoughts of allowing potental terrorists into Australia (I prefere to call them refugees). This was hyped by Little Jonny (P.M. John Howard) to his advantage.

The artcle is sensationalist BS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 12:08 · Score: 0

In Australia, like the majority of western countries, copyright infringement is a tort, A civil case. ie something you can be sued for, not arrested for. There is. However, a rule which allows the party seeking damages to enter a premise to gain evidence, The ACC used this to gain evidence against a number of oil companies who were suspected of price fixing. And, no doubt, The same rule is being used here. The police would only be acting in the capacity to enforce the court order (making sure Telstra lets some prick nose around their server and being a witness if they refuse etc) and would not be investigating the matter themselves - there is no such thing as a detective in charge of license agreement enforcement.

But I guess "FEDERAL police have executed search warrants on..." sells more papers then "FEDERAL police help $SOME_RECORD_COMPANY gain evidence for another we-got-more-money-then-god-and-gonna-sue-your-arse law suit"

This article proves two things, 1, There is a myth that breaking copyright is a crime ? I wonder who started that? 2, The fear of getting sued nulls any innate feeling of taking a stand for such inconvenient notions like privacy or liberty - at least by a large company like Telstra.

Re:Why Shouldn't Police Investigate Potential Crim by reallocate · 2003-03-06 12:45 · Score: 1

>> in Australia, unless you are profiting from the illegal copying of copyrighted works, it is a civil matter, not criminal.

Presumably, the ISP's in question are in the business of selling web access and server space. I.e., they profit from customers who park pirated files on their servers and use their network to make those files available to others.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Re:They don't like it up 'em - Market forces that by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 14:54 · Score: 0

"shame about the aussies, they arfe so laid back in many other ways. How did they get such a dumb govt. Probably to pissed @ the beach to care.

I know I am (I'm in Aus on holiday 8)"

Yeah - you're one wild dude. Hmm, I'm on holiday in a foreign country, I think I might read Slashdot. Get out there and enjoy our country a bit eh.

ACCC Raids Petrol Companies by not_from_here · 2003-03-06 15:33 · Score: 1

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/23/10194 41249569.html

actually we had the accc kick down some doors not long ago and pillage documents from major oil companies who were dobbed in for price collusion by a whistleblower.

oddly enough the oil companies were really pissed and came on tv with a "you can't do this to us!" sort of attitude, while people kicked back and laughed.

and there was much rejoicing

Re:my rights online by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 16:44 · Score: 0

No it isn't. It's a civil matter.

And besides, don't they have anything more important to do ... I guess 16 year olds are a lot easier for the big brave AFP to take on. Real criminals might shot back, or something!

Music trading by morleron · 2003-03-06 17:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

When are the record companies going to figure out that the reason that people so assiduously trade MP3s is that they perceive that the price of the "real thing", i.e. the CD is not worth the value received? The recording industry has no one to blame but themselves for the situation that has been created regarding MP3s, a much lower quality product, from an audio perspective. People know when they're being ripped off and CDs priced at $15 and up is definitely a rip off when you consider what the actual cost of production is.

Even including studio costs, which are generally charged back to the artist, along with promotion costs and virtually any other "cost" associated with the product the recording houses are rolling in money. They're upset about MP3 trading, not because they have any great love for copyright law, except when it benefits them, but because they perceive each MP3 trade as a lost sale. Which is probably not the case in real life.

The recording industry is vainly trying to put the technological genie back in the bottle. The problem is that they are being aided by governments in this attempt. Rather than the government taking the view that the marketplace should be let alone to resolve its own problems of pricing, distribution, etc. they are bowing to the wishes of the wealthy and powerful and passing laws to prevent the marketplace from evolving as it would otherwise.

It is unfortunate that the very technology that has made MP3 trading possible may very well be used to shut down access to anything that isn't paid for up-front. The various DRM recommendations and proposals from folks like our friends at Microsoft are nothing but an attempt to limit the freedom of people to listen to or view what they want when they want after they've purchased a product. The days of pay-per-play are not far off if the entertainment industry has its way.

They do own the rights to the material contained on the CD or DVD that I just bought at Best Buy. But, I own that piece of plastic and if I feel like taking it to a friend's house and playing it or watching it there that is no business of the industry or anyone else. But, the industry would have us live in a world in which they control everything we see or hear, including when and under what conditions we may do so. So keep on trading those MP3s. Civil disobedience is one way of fighting back against those who would limit our freedom simply because they feel entitled to continue to make a living in the same old way. Toss sand in the gears folks, slow things down or ten years from now we may not be able to say what we're saying today because it's "not approved."

just my $.02,
Ron

--
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P

Re: well in Australia... by DancingSword · 2003-03-06 23:59 · Score: 1

Ouch!

French civil law is based on the same assumption, I believe ( France and Quebec, both ).

Seems illogical to both:
.. have authorities who have extra powers/rights-negations, AND
rig law to assume authority's-assertion is inherently valid...

"Checks", "Balances" and "Justice" and "Living Freedom" contradict that paradigm, directly, no?

Such paradigm assumes that no authority is able-to commit ( or be ) wrong ( else they'd not have power-to-assign-guilt and function-of-assigning-guilt on others... ).
Bo-Gus.

--
Messages to/for me ( in me journal )

Hmmmmm by unicorn · 2003-03-07 05:59 · Score: 1

Of course. But back to my original point, the black market does not operate on the same pricing mechinism as the legitimate free market. The buyers and sellers do not control the prices. Government controls the prices with the relative strength of prohibition. The stronger the prohibition, the higher the potential profit.

So you agree, that it's an open market, and that the prices are absolutely controlled by buyers and sellers. And then state that actually they are controlled entirely by the government.

The way the government controls the prices, is by increasing enforcement/prohibition. When they do that the risks go up for the participants in the market. And the price rises as a result of that.

It's absolutely a free market. Granted there is an external influence to the market. But in reality, there is to almost any other free market as well. Mother nature has various ways of affecting many "free markets".

--
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke

Re:Hmmmmm by ratamacue · 2003-03-10 00:58 · Score: 1

So you agree, that it's an open market, and that the prices are absolutely controlled by buyers and sellers. And then state that actually they are controlled entirely by the government.
Of course supply and demand still affects the market. But prohibition turns everything upside down and backwards. Prohibition can force the price of goods up to astronomical amounts.
It's absolutely a free market.
It's nowhere close to a free market. A free market does not penalize buyers and sellers for engaging in voluntary trade.

well wot next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 16:12 · Score: 0

hello to be 60 million dollors of mp3,s that would be more than all music ever produced and that will every be produced for long time to come............

Dead wrong... by unicorn · 2003-03-10 06:30 · Score: 1

From http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/freem arket.html here's an excellent definition:

A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in relative prices rather than through regulation. If a commodity is in short supply relative to the number of people who want to buy it, its price will rise, producers and sellers will make higher profits and production will tend to rise to meet the excess demand. If the available supply of a commodity is in a glut situation, the price will tend to fall, thereby attracting additional buyers and discouraging producers and sellers from entering the market. In a free market, buyers and sellers come together voluntarily to decide on what products to produce and sell and buy, and how resources such as labour and capital should be used.

A free market can be contrasted with a controlled market, where prices are determined by a regulatory or administrative authority and do not respond flexibly in the face of varying demand and supply conditions. Controlled markets are characterized by rationingif production falls short of demand, or a buildup of unsold stocks if production exceeds demand.

If you read that, you'll see that the characteristic of a free market, is that supply and demand drives the pricing. Rather than regulatory mandates as to the market price.

As I explained in my earlier post ALL markets are subject to external influences. That does not cause them to cease being a free market. That just affects the free market prices, that are set, that's all.

--
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke

Re:Oops! by Technician · 2003-03-12 04:52 · Score: 1

I meant Revolution Number Nine Sorry for the typo.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Slashdot Mirror

Australian Federal Police Raid Major ISPs

321 comments