Slashdot Mirror
SMH Outs Copyright-Violation Hunters As Porn-Pushing Brothers
An anonymous reader writes "Media Rights Group, the company preparing mass U.S. style piracy law suits in Australia, has had its directors outed by the Sydney Morning Herald as Internet pornography kingpins Matthew and Richard Clapham. They also linked the pair to password hacking sites and a site previously being investigated by Australian authorities for its statement [to find drunk women and] 'call your friends, bring out the camera and then take turns to f### that drunk slut to a pulp.'"
"'Welcome to the nastiest adult site on the net,'' the text on the home page began. ''Our speciality is young girls drunk or drugged before they are brutally abused!!''
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Not content with having their actors get fucked up the ass, now they want everyone else to be fucked up the ass too.
..what a man an donkey 3 midgets and 5 drunk women do after they push copyright law is on thier time.
"Do you come from a land down under? Where business rules and their men plunder? Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover."
If you're living in Australia, visit your local Pirate Party and consider to join for free. That is the only way to stop this madness; the same-old, same-old parties will never give in.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Even in the deepest, darkest days of the post 2000 internet bubble, one industry kept hiring the brightest and smartest DRM programmers they could find. And if you guessed/knew it was the porn industry, you are right. An acquaintance of mine went out to CA to enjoy the sunshine, the parties, etc.
The porn industry was years ahead of its allegedly less salacious competition (i.e. Hollywood studios) in terms of streaming content securely, etc. reflecting their profit motives perfectly - the internet remains the killer app for the purveyors of smut since it gives its users the false impression of pursuing their "hobby" in the privacy of their home. As a result, adult 'bookstores' are likely on the decline in all but the most rural areas thanks to high-speed internet becoming more and more ubiquitous.
But it seems that no DRM scheme has been unbreakable so far, so these sorts of draconian 'copyright' measures endorsed by smut kingpins and other content providers are simply another way to use the powers of the state to protect their economic interests. That the interests of the public may not be served by said legislation has been debated often, and usually in favor of reducing the length of copyrights to invigorate creative uses, discussion, etc. But, follow the money... and as long as content providers are sticking more cash into the popos of politicians than voters opposing such legislation, my guess is that politicians will parrot whatever soundbites they are told to repeat.
When somebody starts making ad hominem arguments you know they are losing the debate. There are several good arguments to be made against these types of lawsuits, but "the plaintiffs are porn producers" is not one of them.
now the porno-pimps are trying to (!) over the whole country's entertainment system. but to do so, they've had to enter the darkest black hole of the dark side... a contract with government.
oh, lord, have mercy!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I could really care less about the porn thing (barring a few exceptions which I won't elaborate on here) but I'm really interested in the news about their being connected to password hacking.
The cynic part of me says that it's illegal, they broke the law, and nothing will be done to prosecute them.
The eternal wellspring of hope I have says that they'll be convicted by several countries of international computer crimes and sentenced to twenty years, just because.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Yes, the abstract given on your front page is somewhat informative; I have a complaint, though, because I did not want to read such vulgar statements of intent regarding drunk women. If possible please give us readers the option of avoiding such content by leaving it out of the main-page abstract. Sorry to be a pain, I hope you understand.