Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Offices Raided
rj writes "ZDNet Australia is reporting the Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) this morning raided the offices of Kazaa owners, Sharman Networks, along with P2P company Brilliant Digital Entertainment, and the homes of key executives. Background on prosecution of copyright music in Australia over P2P is also available."
Did they think they had a slew of mp3s sitting around on cds in their homes? I know that raiding the offices and homes of execs is fairly common in accounting scandals and the like, but this seems a bit overkill.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
How is Kazaa to blame for the transfer of pirated media across its networks? Should we shutdown the alleys because people sell drugs there? Ridiculous. I hope the MIPI gets screwed in the courts for this one.
Well, who's going to stop Billionares with cops?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
At last, someone has finally gotten in trouble for bundling spyware in their products!
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
Third of Nine
Well, um, yes.
I am guessing that throughout the world, the different recording associations got into a contest to see who could become the most Nazi in their tactics. Until now, RIAA had the lead. To counter this, the RIAA will probably round up all of the file traders into camps. This will allow them to win.
The ZDNet article points out that if all the "pirated" tracks in Australia were purchased for $A0.99, then the record companies would be $2b better off.
As of now, my understanding is that Apple sells tracks for $US0.99, and is in pretty close to a breakeven state for iTunes (this may have changed recently, as surely the sheer volume going through iTunes would cause them to move into profit at some point). Regardless, it seems that $US0.99 is pretty close to the breakeven point, and you'd assume the breakeven cost in Australia would be no lower than that given the population is so small - let's cut the record companies some slack and assume $US0.90 is the breakeven point for online music sales in Australia.
$A0.99 translates to $US0.76. Now, since it costs $US0.90 to provide a downloadable music track, Kazaa is actually *saving* the record companies $US0.14 per downloaded track. By my calculation, the 850,000 tracks downloaded via Kazaa haved saved Australian record companies $US119,000 in providing that service.
What's that? Bogus use of statistics, you say?...
I thought only the cops could performs raids! Thank god this is in australia....if Fritz Hollings has his way we will probably have special music industy SWAT teams roaming the country soon.
Sherman Networks would be bloody stupid to have anything illegal (music/software/etc) on any of their computers and I really doubt they had anything.
This just seems like the MIPI along with the rest of the record industry is trying to harass Sherman Networks into going away. Personally I don't like/use KaZaa or any other P2P utility, but I think it's a necessary evil.
Oh well, if they should manage to close down KaZaa, there's plenty of underground alternatives for the (ab)users. Seems like wasted resources from a desperate industry.
(shot of men in riot gear overturning desks, rifling through offices and smashing computers)
Voice in aussie accent: Search engine!
(shot of Fosters can)
Voice in aussie accent: Beer!
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Of all the subtle and not-so-subtle evils of the Patriot act, it is, at least to my knowledge, employed soley by the government/gov agencies.
This situation in Australia seems not too dissimilar to SCO busting into Linus' house with presumeably armed gov. officials and confiscating everything.
It's corporate terrorism.
a> G'day blue, wha's th' goss?
b> All ya baches, barbies and crocs are belong to us, mate.
a> S'truth?
b> S'truth. It's bonza, mate. You have no chance to survive, make yer time.
a> Crickey dick!
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
That's not a subpoena.
This is a subpoena!
Game... blouses.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose the following;
RIAA/MIPI/"Recording Industry" has been conducting police raids in the United States out on the streets, handing out false tickets on false pretenses, etc... This began occuring over a month ago. Since then, they have lost key decisions in the courts, both in US and Europe, and things are looking bad for them. Now, they are beginning to conduct actual raids on property under obscure laws outside of the United States - obviously an intimidation tatic for those of us in the United States.
Now... why is this good you ask?
Because the day will come when an RIAA representative will knock at my university door and demand to see recipets for all my jazz mp3's (legally and educationaly obtained) I have laying around my harddrives. When this happens, hello Supreme Court.
This series of events is giving us a very clear picture: The RIAA is a dying animal who is now lashing out in any means necessary. Non governmental agencies playing cops - be it here or austrilla - is a fundemental violation of human liberty - which is a value upheld by the UN and the World Court (which Austrilla is a member of). Not that this really matters since no one is going to do anything about it, at least right now.
Later on, we are going to see events like these help us in a completely different court though - the court of public opinion. Isn't it easy to see a Dateline episode being made of this event? Isn't it easy to connect the dots and see that the RIAA and their chums are just doing this so the average American thinks that their home could be raided by Will Smith and his men in black protecting his copyright? Isn't it easy to see that the Average American would go apeshit if the RIAA actually tried to enter their house, and they later found out it was completely against the law?
Let's return to the orignal question. Why is this good?
Because the RIAA and every incarnation of it is pushing the very lines of human rights and freedoms that have been affirmed around the globe since the end of World War II.
I have never seen America stand down in the face of a constitutional violation, never. Hell, even some of my republican friends acknowledge Roe v. Wade. Let the RIAA come and try to impose this scare tatic here in the USA. I fore one can't wait for this good thing to happen. Two days after they try to enter a house in the US (legally or illegaly) Scallia and Rehinquist will join forces and strike the RIAA back to the seventh circle of hell from which it spawned.
Be happy with the RIAA's actions - it's a sign the end is near.
- The Ever Defiant Simrook
(p/s - All spelling errors are mine and mine alone.)
'Truth' is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it...
The article says they used "an Anton Pilar order - which allows a copyright holder to enter a premises to search for and seize material that breaches copyright without alerting the target through court proceedings".
Let's say they find signed confessions by each of the execs, saying they formed the company for the express purpose of allowing other people to breach copyrights. These confessions do not, themselves, breach any copyright laws. They would in fact be copyrighted by the execs themselves. Could those confessions be seized and used in court, under the Anton Pilar law?
IANAL, but this seems like an abuse of an unrelated law to get law enforcement powers for free. I believe this was already tried by their US cousins.
--Bill
It just goes to prove that America is not alone.
Australia also has the best judicial system that money can buy.
.
If you took off your tinfoil hat, you'd notice that government raids of people's homes, on the pretext that their company might have been abused by other people to ignore copyrights, is government by fear and threat of force: fascism. Why is the air so thick with Anonymous Cowards reeling at the charges of fascism?
--
make install -not war
In Anton Piller K.G. v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd., [1976] 1 All E.R. 779 at 782 Lord Denning stated:
"Let me say at once that no court in this land has any power to issue a search warrant to enter a man's house so as to see if there are papers or documents there which are of an incriminating nature, whether libels or infringements of copyright or anything else of the kind. No constable or bailiff can knock at the door and demand entry so as to inspect papers or documents. The householder can shut the door in his face and say, 'Get out.' That was established in the leading case of Entick v. Carrington (1765), 19 State Tr. 1029. None of us would wish to whittle down that principle in the slightest. But the order sought in this case is not a search warrant. It does not authorize the plaintiff's solicitors or anyone else to enter the defendants' premises against their will. Id does not authorize the breading down of any doors, nor the slipping in by a back door, nor getting in by an open door or window. It only authorizes entry and inspection by the permission of the defendants. The plaintiff's must get the defendants' permission. But it does do this: it brings pressure on the defendants to give permission. It does more. It actually orders them to give permission - with, I suppose, the result that if they do not give permission they are guilty of contempt of court."
As you can see, you can if you so chose deny access, but you had better have a pretty good reason.
I wish I could think of a witty Sig. Sigh!
However, the article says that the "Anton pilar order" is there to enter a premises to seize material that infringes copyright.
I don't think the police will find any material that infringes copyright in the Australian office of Sharman. I looks more like a fishing expedition and, most likely, a way to annoy Sharman. Pityfull people...
But hey, Australia has said before they would copy US patent policy when the US would ask them to do so (US did, so Australia did what was aksed), as the US is the most important trade partner for Australia. The same might apply here.
Background info:
In Belgium and France, it's possible to enter premises as well to look for patent infringement, but the party who initiates the proceedings is *not* allowed to enter the premises! Only a bailiff and often an independent expert (patent attorney to neither party) and sometimes a police officer (called Saisie Contrefac,on). Could this be a deriverative of that?
I'm an Australian, but this should satisfy lust as a New Zealander:
;-)
*Baaaaaaaa!*
So long as we're getting into mindless stereotypes here.
Michael Malone from iinet has posted on the whirlpool forums saying that iinet was one of the four ISPs raided and that no subscriber information was asked for. What were they after then? A rumour I read is that some RIAA infringement notices were returned with a kind 'go to hell' and the raids are in response to this.
/. a hard time about their draconian laws and the RIAA acting like thugs. I have to say that I'm sad to see this sort of thing going on in my own country.
I know we give the Americans here on
Australian law allows a warrant to be issued providing that a Justice of the Peace has been convinced that there is reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is evidence of a crime on the premises.
I don't know how this compares with the US justice system and whether this was only granted by the patriot act (I doubt it). This has been the case for many years.
This is an invetigation of kazaa and it is reasonable that police be able to investigate suspected crimes wherever the evidence may be, otherwise criminals could conceal evidence in their homes and be totally immune to investigation.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Well,
This has happened before in the USA and other countries, too. For example Cult of Scientology used to be famous for its raids to the critics' homes (Zenon's case,other cases
The situation is also getting worse in Europe, because the upcoming IPR enforcement directive will greatly strenghen Anton Pillar orders in all member states (unless we will manage to mount enough public pressure to stop the process, which is unlikely but not totally impossible - contact your MEPS today!)
V.
I finally have a post to respond to in which I can pontificate on the freedom of the press clause in the US Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press;...'
I argue that the freedom of the press includes the right of any citizen, or group of citizens to own a press. At the time that the US Constitution was written the only means (i.e. technology) for communicating with a truly mass audience was the printing press.
Historically, only the Crown had the *right* to own a press. The Crown might *permit* others to operate a press subject to prior restraint, but the Crown controlled the uses of all presses.
In order to have freedom of the press individuals, or groups of individuals must necessarily be able to own, and/or have access to the technology that physically, and infrastructurely allows he/she/them to communicate with a mass audience.
Thus, it must logically follow that the freedom of the press must include the right to own the means of communicating with a mass audience.
New technology that provides the ability to communicate with a mass audience has historically, over time, been encompassed by the notion of the freedom of the press with regard to ownership.
The music industry in trying to advance its copyright claims via the elimination of various channels through which copyrighted materials flow illegally. This runs afoul of the freedom of the press.' That is the notion that a technology which allows for the communication between a person, and a mass audience is covered by the freedom of the press. Ultimately, copyright claims must be superseded by the right of the individual to have at their disposal the means of communicating with a mass audience, i.e. 'freedom of the press.'
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
According to Freedom Fight Canada, an "Anton Pillar order is an order allowing for an applicant (without notice to a respondent) to enter the respondent's premises and inspect or seize documents or other items."
Under the Patriot Act, the government is allowed (with a secret warrant) to conduct secret "sneak and peek" searches, without ever informing the target of the search.
The difference is that with Anton Pillar, a private entity can request the search -- so far under U.S. law, only the government can. Of course, if you can find a friendly prosecutor and convince him that there's a possibility a crime has been committed, he'll do your search for you. Indeed, some will argue that that makes U.S. law more favorable to corporations, large corporations generally having more sway with law enforcement than private citizens.
The other difference between Anton Pillar and the Patriot Act is that the legislative intent of the Patriot Act was that its provisions should apply only to suspected acts of terrorism. However, US Attorney General John Ashcroft has aggressively pushed to ignore the legislative intent behind the Patriot Act, and use its provisions for to investigate non-terrorist related activity.
Summary:
Conclusion: via the mechanism of the Patriot Act, "sneak and peek" searches could be conducted on behalf of the recording industry if it alleges that copyright "piracy" is linked to terrorist fundraising, or if John Ashcroft succeeds in using Patriot Act mechanisms for commonplace investigations.
So I think comparisons to the Patriot Act are warranted (no pun intended).
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
A quick Google search seems to indicate that this Anton Pillar Order thing started in the UK, and has spread to at least Canada, Australia, Israel, and Trinidad & Tobago. These orders do, in fact, allow private citizens to enter another private citizen's domain (I have not yet determined whether there is any law enforcement oversight to guarantee that evidentiary chains are followed and that the scope of the order is not exceeded).
Note that an Anton Pillar Order is a court order, so this is not just at the searcher's whim. However, prior to having one's premises searched, there is no opportunity for the searchee to lodge any sort of counter-claim, since their foreknowledge of the search is not required.
Even the Howard Bermans and Fritz Hollingses of the United States haven't proposed laws this off-kilter. One wonders whether this type of law would pass "Due Process" scrutinity here-- obviously law enforcement doesn't need to notify the subject of an investigation or raid in advance. That's well-established. But do we have any precedent saying that a private citizen, even holding court order has the right to perform such an act pro se? Any lawyers, paralegals, or armchair legislators care to comment?
I do not have a signature
Sarcasm, it's what's for dinner. Guess you missed the dinner bell.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
How about the people who make the billionares? If people would only stop buying music!
...///...
Here's how it would go down at my house:
{knock knock} {sound of door being bashed open} Hullo? I have an Anton Pillar order thingie and I'm here to sieze stuff...
{Blam, Blam, Blam}
Really? I have a variety of legal firearms all protected by the 2nd Ammendment and the right to protect my home and property. Now what was that about some sort of legal order?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
and get shot the instant you set your first foot on the premises. No vigilant citizen should be expected to allow this madness. If the government does not protect you and your property from private intervention, heck, if it even endorses private break-in as similar to law enforcement with a warrant and due process unter public scrutiny, then it is the right and the duty of all law abiding citizens to withstand and prevent these actions and even if it sounds provocative: by all means necessary.
The United States of America have a long tradition of people's rights, human rights, democracy and personal freedom. If someone is undermining the very foundations of this country, if they try to finally corrupt the entire state starting with the legislative process through bought senators, bypassing the judicial branch through their own actions and even replacing the executive branch with their own mobsters, it is time for every citizen to react. Form militias, arm yourselves. This is exactly what the second amendmendment was created for: empowering the citizen to protect himself from unwarranted searches, abuse of governemntal powers and the failure of the offical system. Don't tolerate private companies violating private property! Don't tolerate companies who subvert the legal process! Don't tolerate the corruption of the land of the free!
And please remember the following sentences: "I don't agree with what you said, but I'd fight to my death for your right to say it!".
I don't endorse the breach of copyright or anything like that. Even if Sharman Networks did violate this law or another, I will not hesitate to fight with them or anyone else who is denied his constitutional rights and due process over a non-violent, non-capital and non-life threatening crime.
(Even if it sounds provocative or flamebait, it is not meant as such. I truly believe in the law and the constitution as the only rightful way to run a country. Posting logged-in to emphase this, even if the TIA and the rest of the three-letter agency scum will have a field day with their eternal databases. And yes, I reinstate: this comment is about about militant actions against the enemies of the constitution and yes I do make a call to arms against attempts to corrupt the last ones of our private rights.)
By the people - for the people. Nothing else!