Pirate Apple TV Operation Nabbed In Australia

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pirate Apple TV Operation Nabbed In Australia

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 1, 2012 @03:29PM from the pirate-channel dept.

littlekorea writes "New South Wales Police have arrested a man selling USB keys bearing the Apple logo, which offered access to over a thousand Pay TV channels, another thousand movies on demand and several hundred adult films. A forensic analysis of the device revealed the content was hosted in China but streamed via US servers and domains."

128 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

No need for new laws by LostCluster · 2012-02-01 15:29 · Score: 2, Informative

It seems like the content industry has solved it... no need for SOPA/PIPA to be passed, just pay lawyers to sue and tell police to find pirates and the problem is solved.
1. Re:No need for new laws by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-01 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I told my Congressman.
2. Re:No need for new laws by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-02-01 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  Speck had purchased a USB stick branded âApple iPad6 TVâ(TM) from the premises for $99, which alongside a $50 per month subscription fee purported to offer over 1100 pirate TV channels (including MTV, Discovery Channel, ESPN, CNN, HBO, Fox and the BBC), over 1000 first-release movies on-demand (including Hugo, Tin Tin and Mr Poppers Penguins), over 600 adult films and downloads of popular television programs including âThe Family Guy and âBig Bang Theoryâ(TM).
  
  A forensic analysis of the USB stick found it offered "proxied and peer to peer access to restricted sites" hosted within China and the United States, which host several pay TV stations as well as streaming videos and other copyright materials.
  Why deal with those assholes in the first place?
3. Re:No need for new laws by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 18:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's them or Murdoch's Foxtel cable monopoly.
4. Re:No need for new laws by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 19:55 · Score: 0
  
  just pay lawyers to sue and tell police to find pirates and the problem is solved.
  Yeah, but it's much cheaper for them to let the DoJ/FBI/ICE do it for them for free.
5. Re:No need for new laws by flyneye · 2012-02-01 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Funnier yet, they still have to pay $50 plus whatever their service provider wants for streaming over a stupid damn phone anyway.
  If it were a car you'd pay to unlock the steering wheel, pay a monthly fee for seat rental, then pay a toll every two blocks.
  I'll stick with my not-so-smartphone and watch tv/movies on a viewable screen with a real sound system.
  Lol, pirates paying additional fees for stolen tv content ROFLMAO....
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
6. Re:No need for new laws by captain_sweatpants · 2012-02-01 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  Actually this article is far less interesting than this one. A copyright ruling in the Federal court makes it essentially impossible for sporting organisations to charge for internet broadcast rights to any content which also streams on free-to-air tv. Which may or may not be good thing...
7. Re:No need for new laws by kcitren · 2012-02-02 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Funnier yet, they still have to pay $50 plus whatever their service provider wants for streaming over a stupid damn phone anyway.
  Huh? This device has nothing to do with phones. It's software that goes on a windows machine that happens to be packaged on a USB stick that's branded as Apple iPad6 TV. On another note, I'm beginning to associate the "Pssh, I not own a smartphone" crowd with the "Oh sorry, I don't own a TV" crowd. It's fine either way [with / without a TV / smartphone], but it doesn't make you superior in any way, and you don't need to go out of your way to make people know.
8. Re:No need for new laws by Hatta · 2012-02-02 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  All the law enforcement in the world won't stop a bit of piracy. Look at what 40 years of the War on Drug Users has gotten us. It's still easier for a kid to get a joint than a beer. Does anyone think a war on piracy would be any more effective?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
9. Re:No need for new laws by iluvcapra · 2012-02-02 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Why deal with those assholes in the first place?
  Yeah, they would have made so much more money selling access to Kickstarter-financed mumblecore movies, Red vs. Blue episodes and Vimeo music videos. Because Open Always Wins(tm).
  Can we just abandon the pretense that piracy doesn't cost any artist any money ever? I guess if you're sending an mkv of a Red Dwarf episode to your brother that just sorta happens and there's nothing evil about that, but these stories keep cropping up where some guy with a server somewhere is selling access to his pirated library for millions of dollars before getting the plug pulled. Clearly every dime this guy made was a lost sale.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
10. Re:No need for new laws by flyneye · 2012-02-02 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? This device has nothing to do with phones.
  Phones, bittypads whatever , You're gonna get astigmatism from your dinky screen in addition to paying outragious idiot tax for crap thats free or less for other devices. Phones and pads are morphing into each other anyway.
  
  On another note, I'm beginning to associate the "Pssh, I not own a smartphone" crowd with the "I didn't get a trendy lobotomy" crowd. It's fine either way [with / without a frontal lobe], but it doesn't make you superior in any way, and you don't need to go out of your way to make people know.
  I'll take that under advisement.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Dream gadget by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 15:35 · Score: 0

Porn surfer's dream gadget?
1. Re:Dream gadget by viperidaenz · 2012-02-01 15:59 · Score: 2
  
  Its only several hundred adult films, not several thousand.
2. Re:Dream gadget by Black+Parrot · 2012-02-01 18:05 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Its only several hundred adult films, not several thousand.
  That's what struck me about the story: A thousand channels and a thousand movies, but only several hundred adult films?
  What kind of pervert is making these things???
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
3. Re:Dream gadget by antifoidulus · 2012-02-01 18:36 · Score: 2
  
  Not only that, it's probably that "professional" stuff that is more comedy than anything erotic, if you really want free porn, there are a massive number of free youtube-like porn sites out there.
  
  --
  Monstar L
4. Re:Dream gadget by AHuxley · 2012-02-01 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  More like what streams to hotels for the expensive digital pay per view boxes connected to your room.
  You get a few local and lifestyle media streams for free with a constant reminder of the option to select adult media for $$ per movie.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
5. Re:Dream gadget by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  Ummm....where can I buy one of these? XD
Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by wo1verin3 · 2012-02-01 15:40 · Score: 0

FTFA: “Customers of this criminal enterprise are not unintended beneficiaries of the digital revolution, they are receivers of stolen property,” he said.
Unless the USB keys themselves were stolen, to which there appears to be no mention of (and you can be sure they would mention it), there is no transfer of property.
We need to (I realize easier said than done) get the media to start correcting ridiculous statements.
1. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by lazycam · 2012-02-01 15:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Not sure where you are from, but in the USA our courts treat digital content as property. Also, unauthorized access to password protected content falls under the same umbrella. I am unfamiliar with the laws covering digital content and password protected services in the UK, but I imagine the laws are either (1) more restrictive or (2) the courts have taken it upon themselves to issue warrants regardless of the laws on the books.
  
  --
  my mom posts on slashdot.
2. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  someone who copies a movie in the us is charged with theft and not copyright infringement?
3. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 15:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's right, so you better give the property back, or else. This isn't a controversy over whether it is "property". If I take a picture of a painting that is hanging in your house, I haven't stolen it.
  Stolen implies that the original owner no longer owns it.
  Once you thick-headed morons finally get this through your skull, we can begin having intelligent discussions about copyright infringement and what to do about it.
4. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 15:55 · Score: 0
  
  Not yet.
5. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by psiclops · 2012-02-01 16:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Australia is not in the UK. We have our own laws seperate from the empire.
  Although according to this article they have identified 100 customers and will be pursuing them for recieving stolen goods. I dont know how that'll go in court though.
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
6. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 16:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure what the UK has to do with this as it's an article on an Australian State Police investigation.
7. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by lazycam · 2012-02-01 16:19 · Score: 2
  
  Australia is not in the UK.
  I appologize. I blame my US education for my ignorance of geography.
  
  --
  my mom posts on slashdot.
8. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by mjwx · 2012-02-01 16:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  FTFA: “Customers of this criminal enterprise are not unintended beneficiaries of the digital revolution, they are receivers of stolen property,” he said.
  Unless the USB keys themselves were stolen, to which there appears to be no mention of (and you can be sure they would mention it), there is no transfer of property.
  We need to (I realize easier said than done) get the media to start correcting ridiculous statements.
  Indeed, the "customers" were victims of fraud. The fraud being committed by the one who was arrested for selling fraudulent goods.
  
  Also please note, the person who the article quoted was Michael Speck, A copyright "specialist" working for "international entertainment networks" not the NSW police.
  
  As for receiving stolen goods, legally "The Crown must prove that, at the time of receipt of the goods, the accused knew or believed them to have been stolen." So if the Crown (what the state is called in court in Oz) cannot prove the purchaser knew the goods were stolen at the time of purchase, they cannot be charged with receiving stolen goods. Thus the customers are victims of fraud and this copyright "specialist" is full of shit.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
9. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by HornyBastard · 2012-02-01 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  Australia is not in the UK.
  
  If you put the queen of england on your money, you're british!
  
  --
  Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in lab rats.
10. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Cimexus · 2012-02-01 17:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually, the Queen of Australia is on our money. The fact that the same physical person also happens to be the Queen of England is irrelevant. One person, multiple hats.
  When the Queen is in Australia, she's not there as the Queen of England (or any other Commonwealth realm). All the standards, flags, titles associated with her role as Queen of England are nowhere to be seen - the Australian equivalents are used instead. For instance this flag will be on her vehicle.
  One might argue that it's all a subtle technicality. But we don't put the Queen of England on our money, any more than the UK puts the Queen of Australia on theirs.
11. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by psiclops · 2012-02-01 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  i wouldnt trust that last link. apparently the author doesnt know the difference between a country and a continent.
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
12. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by bunbuntheminilop · 2012-02-01 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  What if you treat them as service providers rather than asset owners.
  Say I provide a service to people. At the point that people pay, someone sets up a register, and claims that you can pay him half the price for full settlement. Has the customer 'stolen' the service? Or has the guy stolen the money from the customer?
13. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by geminidomino · 2012-02-01 18:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  We should be so lucky.
14. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Cimexus · 2012-02-01 18:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Who modded this informative? She is most definitely the Queen of Australia (and Head of State): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia (same argument applies to most of the other countries you mention too).
  She's head of the Commonwealth too, as you point out. But that's a separate role to her role as Queen.
15. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-01 19:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually, she is. Her Australian royal title is as follows:
  "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."
  That she also has other royal titles in other realms of which she is a queen bears no relation to her status as a Queen of Australia.
16. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by EdIII · 2012-02-01 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure where you are from, but in the USA our courts treat digital content as property
  No. They most certainly do not.
  You can consider three components comprising an instance of intellectual property.
  1) The physical medium upon which the content is transferred.
  2) The content itself.
  3) The copyright that provides certain legal entitlements to the copyright holder to control what happens with the content in specific ways.
  What is treated as physical property is the copyright not the content. That is why it is said that somebody can "own" a copyright. They don't "own" the content, but get to treat their control over that content as something physical to ostensibly tie into terms of ownership we can understand.
  Nobody ever owns the content. Ownership of information and ideas is dangerous and irrational. The only reasonable justification for providing copyrights is to create an incentive to create new ideas, art, music, etc. That is supposed to be temporary anyways if you go along with that theory, which some do not. While I personally support the idea of creating incentives it deeply concerns me that people don't understand the what, why, and how it works.
  This misunderstanding and ignorance, coupled with outright greed, is what creates an environment where somebody can say that you can own 1's and 0's and it is not seen as completely ludicrous instantaneously.
17. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  That's fraud.
18. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 19:38 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody's stolen anything... You offer a sight-seeing tour of your town for $60, another guy offers the same service for $30. Other guy hasn't stolen anything from you, nor have the customers.
  You people need to get it through your thick-headed skulls, you can't compare movies, songs, software, etc. to anything else in the world. Nothing else can be duplicated and distributed as easily, and if someone uses a pirated copy of a movie, song, software, they haven't stolen anything, at worst the original producer has lost out on potential revenue, and even that's debatable.
19. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 20:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."
  Shouldn't that be Elizabeth the First in Australia, given that it's the first Elizabeth to be queen of Australia?
  Or was the original retroactively made queen of Australia?
  There are precedents for the numbering differing between countries. King Karl XV of Sweden and Karl IV of Norway, for example, were the same person.
20. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 20:34 · Score: 0
  
  The service here is provided from Chinese servers. Are you claiming that he ripped off the Chinese company providing the service?
21. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Savage-Rabbit · 2012-02-01 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  You people need to get it through your thick-headed skulls, you can't compare movies, songs, software, etc. to anything else in the world. Nothing else can be duplicated and distributed as easily, and if someone uses a pirated copy of a movie, song, software, they haven't stolen anything, at worst the original producer has lost out on potential revenue, and even that's debatable.
  Yes, precisely, it's like a factory in China manufacturing exact copies of your product. It's not as their activities are harming your business in any way. At worst you have lost out on potential revenue, and maybe you will get an undeserved reputation for lousy product quality but even that is debatable.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
22. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by neonsignal · 2012-02-01 21:46 · Score: 2
  
  That's what worries me. When Britain becomes a republic, does that mean Her Royal Highness will move here to Australia for good? ;)
23. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 21:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  From your third link:
  
  11% of Americans could not find America
  *removes sunglasses* Mother of god...
24. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by msobkow · 2012-02-01 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  More specifically, they applied value to the copyright materials by charging for it. It's the act of charging a fee which changes it from simple copyright violation to actual theft in my books. The media companies are barking up the wrong tree to pursue those who preview media and buy it later if it's worthwhile, but those who SELL copyrighted media are obviously taking something of value, or they wouldn't be able to CHARGE for it.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
25. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Poltron+Inconnu · 2012-02-01 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  While you're somewhat correct in that US courts (and lawmakers) sometimes act as if digital content is real property and that there are laws against unauthorized access to password protected content in the US and UK, what does that have to do with anything? The post to which you replied, and the article to which he refers, don't mention either country nor do the events related in the article take place in either country. There isn't even any mention in either of them about unauthorized access to password protected content. You could have responded with the proper care and feeding of goldfish and no matter how correct your information was, it would have been just as irrelevant.
26. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by PieceOfShitAndroid · 2012-02-01 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  Then why is her birthday different everywhere you go?
27. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by 1u3hr · 2012-02-01 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  More specifically, they applied value to the copyright materials by charging for it. It's the act of charging a fee which changes it from simple copyright violation to actual theft in my books
  So , it's not the act of copying, but the selling afterwards, that makes it "theft"?
  Bollocks. While selling it certainly makes it a more serious crime, it has absolutely nothing to do with "theft". If you believe it's as serious as theft, fine, say that. But it's still NOT theft.
  You're simply defining them as guilty of a crime that never was committed.
  This is like those people who label anyone with a different political opinion "traitors" or "terrorists".
28. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by KeensMustard · 2012-02-02 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  There was an interesting discussion recently about the order of succession. Apparently the Poms are planning to change the order of succession so the the crown will descend to the first born child regardless of gender.
  If they do that, and Australia doesn't, in the future the Queen of England and the King of Australia will obviously be different people.
29. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Well it's a little different. It's not like they make remakes of the movies in China, and that would be a more accurate comparison.
30. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Hognoxious · 2012-02-02 00:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Australia is not in the UK. We have our own laws seperate from the empire.
  It would be futile for Australians to hang on to British laws, given that most of them were sent there because they didn't obey them.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
31. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by sempir · 2012-02-02 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  the future the Queen of England and the King of Australia will obviously be different people.
  Either that or the Person is the ultimate in ambisextrousness.
  
  --
  A closed mouth gathers no foot.
32. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  Can't you take the old bag full time ?
  Then we in the UK can be rid of her and her vast brood of benefit scroungers and assorted hangers on.
33. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by msi · 2012-02-02 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  James I of England and VI of Scotland
34. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  James I of England and VI of Scotland
  Shouldn't it be James EMACS of England and VI of Scotland?
35. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  In all fairness, neither did Drew Carey.
36. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by iluvcapra · 2012-02-02 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody's stolen anything... You offer a sight-seeing tour of your town for $60, another guy offers the same service for $30.
  At least the "another guy" in your example is actually providing a tour. A copyright pirate is essentially taking $30 from your customers and sneaking them onto the back of your sightseeing bus.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
37. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by iluvcapra · 2012-02-02 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  The Commonwealth of Nations is a unitary political institution, the successor of various sovereign institutions that have existed since the at least the Tudor dynasty, and recognizing an unbroken chain of title and royal legitimacy. For a Commonwealth Realm, "Queen of Australia" is just an alias for "the constitutionally-recognized sovereign of the United Kingdom."
  For the Queen to have a separate regnal number in Australia would imply that Australia had a separate royal family from the United Kingdom with a distinct patrimony.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
38. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by Em+Adespoton · 2012-02-02 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well, she may decide to move to Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, or Tuvalu -- all of which also hold her as their nation's supreme monarch (and have no direct ties to England or the UK).
  Of course, the fact that in the past UK monarchs have often lived abroad (and for everyone but the UK, their monarch lives abroad) means that she's not likely to move Buckingham Palace to Tuvalu any time soon. I bet they'd give her better tax breaks than the UK does, however.
39. Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected by softwareGuy1024 · 2012-02-02 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure about movies, but they do remake American TV shows in China. They are obvious, and poorly produced copies.
What? by Vrtigo1 · 2012-02-01 15:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

How is content hosted in china but streamed via US servers? That statement doesn't make much sense.
1. Re:What? by GumphMaster · 2012-02-01 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  Especially since TFA clearly states:
  
  it offered “proxied and peer to peer access to restricted sites” hosted within China and the United States
  
  --
  Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 19:24 · Score: 0
  
  How is content hosted in china but streamed via US servers? That statement doesn't make much sense.
  Well, if it is torrents, then I imagine you could pick any country with half-way decent internet access and say that it is streamed via servers from there. As long as anyone in the peer to peer network is in that country, then you would be correct.
3. Re:What? by stephanruby · 2012-02-01 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  How is content hosted in china but streamed via US servers? That statement doesn't make much sense.
  It doesn't make much sense to me either, especially when the original article clearly says "hosted within China and the United States"
  
  Speck told iTnews he offered the opportunity for Apple Australia to also pursue the retailer to protect its trademarks, but to his disappointment the company declined.
  Yes, it sounds more like Apple probably didn't want to hire him. Whether Apple Australia pursues this case, or not, it's not any of his business anyway. The last thing Apple needs is to hire (or even endorse) a self-designated "copyright specialist" (whatever the hell that title means). The last thing any Corporation needs is an unknown self-designated over-eager PI. Private Investigators break laws. Private Investigators break into voice mail accounts. And sometimes Private Investigators (or self-designated vigilantes) try to commit even more serious crimes in order to impress a new potential employer.
  When I worked for a huge corporation, anytime something happened to our company, we had every unemployed quack pot coming out of the woodwork offering to "help" us out in some way. And of course, we rejected all those offers and offered no information whatsoever about what our next step was going to be.
4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 23:21 · Score: 0
  
  I reckon it means either
  a, the video data was stored in China and
  b. the DNS hosting services and/or the landing and navigation pages (ie the non copyright stuff) was hosted on US servers
Pirate TV, not Apple TV by webdog314 · 2012-02-01 15:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Just because the guy choses a USB stick with an Apple logo on it (that's not even made by Apple) doesn't mean it has *anything* to do with Apple or Apple TV. Was he somehow spoofing iTunes accounts?
1. Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV by infurnus · 2012-02-01 15:59 · Score: 2
  
  In the article, you can see they used the Apple logo in their GUI as well, and had "iPad TV" written next to the apple logo on the USB drives.
  There was also a "Made in Taiwan" text next to that.
  
  Technically, even if these USB drives/keys weren't counterfeit, they still committed trademark infringement.
2. Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV by psiclops · 2012-02-01 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. It seems apple wanted nothing to do with it either.
  From TFA:
  
  Speck told iTnews he offered the opportunity for Apple Australia to also pursue the retailer to protect its trademarks, but to his disappointment the company declined.
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
3. Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV by mjwx · 2012-02-01 16:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Just because the guy choses a USB stick with an Apple logo on it (that's not even made by Apple) doesn't mean it has *anything* to do with Apple or Apple TV. Was he somehow spoofing iTunes accounts?
  Actually, it's selling fraudulent goods.
  
  The USB sticks were being sold _as_ Apple products when they were not. Just because the purchaser was dumb enough to buy them (first dumb enough to buy Apple, then dumb enough to buy fake Apple products) does not excuse it.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
4. Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV by mug+funky · 2012-02-01 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  you mean they've given up on that trademark?
  sweet!
5. Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV by scdeimos · 2012-02-01 17:56 · Score: 2
  
  It's weird they called them counterfeit Apple products, twice, when Apple doesn't make anything like it.
6. Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV by 1u3hr · 2012-02-01 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty dumb to call them "counterfeit devices bearing the Apple trademark". They were simply USB thumbdrives. There was no "counterfeiting" (except the logo itself). It was simply a way to deliver a piece of software that accessed the servers. Maybe it acted as a dongle.
  Obviously aimed at people who don't have a clue how to use a computer to download or stream content themselves; otherwise who would pay for this?
  The police must love this method because they have a physical "device" to bag and tag and present in court.
7. Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think it works that way.
  You only lose the trademark if you don't prevent it from genericization (eg kleenex tissues, bandaid bandage, photoshop photo cleanup, etc) even then, it could simply be Apple not wanting to waste time on something that will only waste their legal money.
8. Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV by Kjella · 2012-02-02 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't matter. If you fooled people into thinking a handbag is a new Gucci design, complete with the Gucci logo and all then that would be a counterfeit Gucci whether they actually make a handbag that looks anything like it or not. All that matters is that you present it as an official product, whether it exists or not.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
In this week's episode... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-02-01 15:43 · Score: 4, Funny

...of Michael Speck, Undercover International Entertainment Network Copyright Specialist, ...
Aw hell, it's late. Somebody take the ball and run with it.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
1. Re:In this week's episode... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 15:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  we travel to the far reaches of papua new guinea where they don't have electricity and sue an entire tribe. the tribe settles the dispute by eating the lawyers.
2. Re:In this week's episode... by Black+Parrot · 2012-02-01 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  ...of Michael Speck, Undercover International Entertainment Network Copyright Specialist, ...
  Aw hell, it's late. Somebody take the ball and run with it.
  If James Bond had been first dreamed up in 2012, that's what he'd be.
  Blofeld would be a serial downloader, or maybe mastermind of the Pirate Party. His cat's name would be a copyright violation.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2012-02-01 15:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. Where can I get one of these?
1. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by yamum · 2012-02-01 17:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I actually had a demo one of these type things and tcpdump'd the traffic. Found it used sopcast so easily made a version of the dongle in perl. All Korean content but streamed from China.
2. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by Yvanhoe · 2012-02-01 17:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It is too bad that you are modded funny.
  
  Why is it that the only way to get access to this kind of content is through illegal means ? How did this society go so wrong that a product that is technicably feasible since a decade, highly desirable with millions of potential clients, was made impossible to create ?
  
  Shouldn't lawmakers adress this problem ? The ACTA lobbyists tried to find ways to preserve revenue streams that seem frankly unsustainable in today's technology environment but did not wonder how they could make international agreements to make new revenues possible.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
3. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by wanzeo · 2012-02-01 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  So they were $99 dollars upfront for a USB key containing keys to access a website serving up copyright infringing media for an additional recurring $50 a month. If I remember correctly, AUD ~ USD.
  Even if you don't account for the problems of giving CC info to a shady site (say you use prepaid cards), that is still a lot of money to pay for access to copyrighted media. Isn't the whole point to not spend money? Who was their target market?
4. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by Custard+Horse · 2012-02-01 21:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The fact that people are willing to pay this much should be a lesson to the copyright holders and content providers. The message is "we will pay for this service but until it becomes available we have to buy from criminals".
  The problem with creating a legal service to step into the shoes of this illegal service is the competition between the companies that are involved. Can you imagine the complexity of a deal involving all of the companies in the article? I would imagine that Apple would gladly provide the hardware but it would also want the lion's share of the revenue even though the content would be provided by others.
5. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by 1u3hr · 2012-02-01 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  Try http://dl.pps.tv/
  Probably pretty much the same content, but this is free. Supposedly legal, but I wouldn't depend on that.
6. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-02-02 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Because you have no right to someone else's work?
  Until matter replicators become a reality, the hard truth is monied interests will still grab artists and performers by the balls because all the notions of good intentions and free culture doesn't put food on the table. However, the assholes in the entertainment industry are willing to pay if they're willing to work within their system.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
7. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by LateArthurDent · 2012-02-02 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  Because you have no right to someone else's work?
  We have no right to somebody else's property. An artist's contribution to culture isn't his property, it's a part of the culture they contributed to.
  The fact is that we like to encourage this contribution by giving the artists certain rights to OUR property for a limited time. They're borrowing it from us, and we'd like it returned in a more reasonable time, please. If you don't like the rules, don't share your art with the world, keep it in your vault where only you can see it.
8. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-02-02 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  Artists work for a living. Their work is theirs. You seem to have this odd entitled notion that they are there for you. You are wrong. You are there for them.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
9. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by LateArthurDent · 2012-02-02 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  Can you erase a song from your mind after you're done listening to it? Can you be absolutely sure that no work you do after seeing a painting will be influenced by what you've seen? Once you've been exposed to somebody's work, you're changed by it, if only by containing the memories you now possess. In time, this results in a shared language by people who have seen the work. When you watch Toy Story and you see Mr. Potato Head exclaim, "Hey, Look! I'm a Picasso!" you only understand that joke because his surrealist paintings are now part of our culture.
  I'm not saying I can walk in and steal your painting, your cds, or your blu-rays. The medium the art is on is most certainly property. The content is something that belongs to everyone who has seen it.
  
  Artists work for a living.
  So do I. I'm not guaranteed, nor do I have a right to make money off my career, though, I could be fired at any time, my skills could not be in demand. I may be forced to switch careers to make a living.
  
  You seem to have this odd entitled notion that they are there for you. You are wrong. You are there for them.
  If they don't need an audience, they're free to keep their work locked up in their house. Anyone breaking in and taking those will most certainly be stealing. If you want to disseminate your work, that's your choice, but the consequence is that you lose control of it.
10. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by petermgreen · 2012-02-02 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Apple aren't really relavent here, they were just using apple's brand to try and make themselves look more legit. I'm sure a legitimate service could find someone to license a brand off if they didn't feel like building their own.
  However as you allude to an equally good legitimate service cannot and will not happen (at least not without government intervention). The fundamental problem is that since licenses do cost money and some content owners are likely to either refuse outright or charge unreasonable rates a legitimate service is doomed to end up with both higher prices and less content than a pirate service.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
11. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by tilante · 2012-02-02 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  How's it "impossible to create?" Leaving out the fact that they didn't purchase rights to the content they distributed, what they did was no different technologically than Netflix sending out those CDs that let you access their service from a Wii. They just used USB sticks and had it work on a PC instead. There's plenty of people providing legal versions of this -- Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc. They don't put their program on a USB stick, but that's because a "clientless" setup through a web browser is cheaper for them. If they needed to, they could distribute the program on media, as Netflix did with their Wii program before they were able to get Nintendo to offer it through their "Wii Channels". The reason that these require a subscription instead of a one-time purchase is so the company can afford to keep providing the service with new content. In point of fact, if you're willing to just stream free content from various sources, you can get much the same thing (one-time payment to buy a device to stream video from the Internet) perfectly legally with a Roku.
12. Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-02-02 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Can you erase a song from your mind after you're done listening to it? Can you be absolutely sure that no work you do after seeing a painting will be influenced by what you've seen? Once you've been exposed to somebody's work, you're changed by it, if only by containing the memories you now possess. In time, this results in a shared language by people who have seen the work. When you watch Toy Story and you see Mr. Potato Head exclaim, "Hey, Look! I'm a Picasso!" you only understand that joke because his surrealist paintings are now part of our culture.
  No, but this doesn't grant you the right to torrent videos, music and games.
  It certainly opens up art for remixing, mashups, mods, reedits... But, beyond that? No, you're not entitled to media or art.
  
  So do I. I'm not guaranteed, nor do I have a right to make money off my career, though, I could be fired at any time, my skills could not be in demand. I may be forced to switch careers to make a living.
  No, it's not. But if you like a person's work, pay up and make sure they can afford to keep making art.
  I'm not necessarily going to bat here for mass media.. But a lot of my friends are artists, musicians, etc. If you want to enjoy their work, support them. Pay for their stuff. You have no right to just grab.
  
  If they don't need an audience, they're free to keep their work locked up in their house. Anyone breaking in and taking those will most certainly be stealing. If you want to disseminate your work, that's your choice, but the consequence is that you lose control of it.
  I'm not talking about stealing, I'm talking about entitlement and taking. No, you don't legally lose control of your work once it's been published. Not for many many years to come atleast. Which I wish were shorter, but it's not.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Was it unlicensed or improperly licensed? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 15:53 · Score: 0

What happens when they find out that the stuff was all licensed but at rates for mainland China? Cultural discrimination in Australia more a crime than copyright licenses issues.
1. Re:Was it unlicensed or improperly licensed? by mug+funky · 2012-02-01 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  then the OFLC^W^W^W^WCOB^W^W^W Classification Board will eat them for breakfast.
Forensics needed by RubberDogBone · 2012-02-01 15:55 · Score: 1

I am an investigator looking into a similar case. Where can I obtain one of these keys for forensic research?
Please send to Computer Forensick Unlimited (CFU) Box 169, East Anyton, CA, USA
Thanks!

--
Sig for hire.
Next Target: The Consumers by VJmes · 2012-02-01 16:01 · Score: 1

The police in this case have stated that the customers of these USB keys (The list being compiled from information collected at the raid) will be persued by police and treated as “receivers of stolen property."

I really want to see how that bullshit plays out in court.
1. Re:Next Target: The Consumers by icebike · 2012-02-01 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  The police in this case have stated that the customers of these USB keys (The list being compiled from information collected at the raid) will be persued by police and treated as “receivers of stolen property."
  I really want to see how that bullshit plays out in court.
  Probably exactly as the police expect. You may have notices that the Australian Courts are even more on the
  side of big media than the US courts.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Re:Next Target: The Consumers by Whiteox · 2012-02-01 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. If they are paying for a monthly service (same price as Sat TV/month) + internet access, then how can they be guilty?
  The trouble is that all the good criminal lawyers in Oz are vacationing somewhere sunny and warm.
  Those Chinese users are heading for the slammer + fines + court costs.
  
  --
  Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
3. Re:Next Target: The Consumers by zippthorne · 2012-02-01 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it sunny and warm in oz right now?
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
4. Re:Next Target: The Consumers by mjwx · 2012-02-01 16:58 · Score: 2
  
  The police in this case have stated that the customers of these USB keys (The list being compiled from information collected at the raid) will be persued by police and treated as “receivers of stolen property."
  I really want to see how that bullshit plays out in court.
  Probably exactly as the police expect. You may have notices that the Australian Courts are even more on the
  side of big media than the US courts.
  You dont live in Australia do you.
  
  Australian courts tend to side against big media. Feel free to look up AFACT vs iinet.
  
  Now the NSW Police haven't said they will do anything against the customers, the law views them as victims of fraud. In order for them to be receivers of stolen goods they must have had prior knowledge the goods were stolen.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
5. Re:Next Target: The Consumers by mug+funky · 2012-02-01 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  citation needed.
6. Re:Next Target: The Consumers by mug+funky · 2012-02-01 17:15 · Score: 2
  
  yeah, but the aircon is on the fritz again and we're freezing our tits off.
7. Re:Next Target: The Consumers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 17:23 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't it sunny and warm in oz right now?
  More wet than sunny, so I guess you could say its currently ,em>warm and moist downunder...
  I will be interested to see how the Australian courts deal with this case.
8. Re:Next Target: The Consumers by Black+Parrot · 2012-02-01 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, but the aircon is on the fritz again and we're freezing our tits off.
  On this side of the planet, we freeze our asses off.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What does it have to do with piracy? by viperidaenz · 2012-02-01 16:07 · Score: 1

Sounds like the only thing this guy is doing is violating Apple's trademark on their little apple icon.
Where the subscription service gets its content from hasn't been revealed and the police probably don't even know yet. Unless this man runs the companies that supply that service, he isn't doing anything wrong. The Chinese company that streams the content is the entity that requires the licenses for the content they deliver.
So the question is flavor... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 16:10 · Score: 0

Did the lawyers taste like ink, cotton, or babies?
>>the tribe settles the dispute by eating the lawyers.
1. Re:So the question is flavor... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-02-05 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Did the lawyers taste like ink, cotton, or babies?
  >>the tribe settles the dispute by eating the lawyers.
  CHICKEN!!
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are OTA by Joe_Dragon · 2012-02-01 16:11 · Score: 1

most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are OTA but with OTA there is good stuff that can get like all the NFL games with out the added cost of NFL ST, WGN 9 (better for sports then wgn america).
But I tried one of the underground web tv feeds then VS was pulled from directv and the PQ was not that good.
companies that manufacture in China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 16:25 · Score: 0

Such as IBM, Apple, GE, Dell, etc. deserve what is coming to them.
1. Re:companies that manufacture in China by Black+Parrot · 2012-02-01 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Such as IBM, Apple, GE, Dell, etc. deserve what is coming to them.
  Big piles of money?
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
$100 by SwampChicken · 2012-02-01 16:33 · Score: 1

And then another $50 a month??? How much more does the legit service cost?
1. Re:$100 by c0lo · 2012-02-01 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  How much more does the legit service cost?
  Example
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:$100 by grahamsaa · 2012-02-01 17:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is an excellent example of why piracy is alive and well today. I occasionally get a call from my cable (internet) provider asking me if I'm interested in taking advantage of a special 'deal' to get cable TV access for around $65/month (for a limited time, of course). Each time I respond by saying "so, you've removed all the advertisements, then?"
  
  The person on the other end of the phone usually sounds confused until I explain that I will happily pay for content, but not so long as they try to treat me as the customer and the product at the same time. I _might_ pay $10/month for a full cable package with ads, and $50/month might be reasonable for 100% ad-free content, but anything like what the standard providers are charging for ad supported content is completely unthinkable. Until then, services like Hulu are a much better deal.
  
  And if content providers are too stupid to put their content up on those sites, I have no qualms pirating it. If I can't find a way to watch content cheaply or for free, I don't bother with that content at all. Big content -- adapt or die!
  
  --
  Facts have a liberal bias.
3. Re:$100 by AHuxley · 2012-02-01 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  About A$170 (US $180) just for movies/multiroom http://www.foxtel.com.au/shop/packages/build-your-own/default.htm once you start to add your own "channel packages".
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
4. Re:$100 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Hulu does the same thing. You are the product.
5. Re:$100 by Mista2 · 2012-02-02 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  All this proves there is a worldwide market for the content, at a reasonable price, and you can make mony off it if you dont treat your customers like criminals and DRM the content to death. It obviously isnt working anyway as this content is being copied and made available despite their best efforts at DRM.
  Just let me choose a providor who can get ALL content equally, and not be tied to an exclusive deal.
  Here in NZ, we've just started getting some new shows, all the ones canned after thier first season in the US., but we are still getting big-bang reruns instead of new episodes. Grrrr. No wonder EZTV gets my viewing.
Don't hold your breath. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2012-02-01 16:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unless the USB keys themselves were stolen ... there is no transfer of property. We need to ... get the media to start correcting ridiculous statements.
The companies doing the reporting are also the companies who own the "content" that is being "stolen" (or "copied without purchase of the right to do so").
So I wouldn't bother spending any effort trying to get them to change their language to be more accurate (but less accusatory).

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are by zippthorne · 2012-02-01 16:47 · Score: 1

What good stuff is like an NFL game?
<spoiler>
The ending of the next NFL game:
At least one, but not more than two, teams are going to walk off the field disappointed...
</spoiler>

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Terrible headline by Swampash · 2012-02-01 16:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Come on Slashdot editors, you can do better than that. I suggest:
"Apple Pirate Apple TV Apple Operation Apple Nabbed Apple In Apple Australia Apple"
or maybe "Apple Apple Pirate Apple Apple Australia Apple Apple"
or possibly even "Apple iPhone iPad iPod iMac Macbook Pro Macbook Air iTunes Steve Jobs Apple"
Keep on spamming those keywords, you're improving the Internet for everyone!
1. Re:Terrible headline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  I got at the bottom of slashdot a quite appropriate quote: "A is for Apple. -- Hester Pryne"
Piracy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 17:15 · Score: 0

Interesting given that Optus have just won a case that says they are allow to stream AFL etc. to their customers mobiles without the permission of the content provider... (Though in that case it's Free TV - maybe that's the difference).
"A forensic analysis" by Gothmolly · 2012-02-01 17:28 · Score: 2

Christ - I've heard enough chimps in LARGE_US_BANK where I work throw the word "forensic" around to the point where it has become meaningless, and this just proves it. They probably just mounted the thumbdrive and read some files on it.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
1. Re:"A forensic analysis" by VortexCortex · 2012-02-01 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  forensic - a. Portmanteau of Foreign and Sick.
  "Get your damned forensic copyright legislation out of our country!"
Re:most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are by Black+Parrot · 2012-02-01 18:22 · Score: 1

What good stuff is like an NFL game?
For me, rooting for an NFL team is like rooting for one corporation to beat another. I find it very hard to care who wins, let alone find it interesting enough to watch.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 20:50 · Score: 0

Someone carried around his bookmarks on a USB stick which he pimped with a Apple logo.
Forensics is still trying to find out if the Apple logo is some kind of sticker with glue on one side... or if it had been drawn on.. with a pen...
Re:most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are by rednip · 2012-02-01 22:28 · Score: 1

For me, rooting for an NFL team is like rooting for one corporation to beat another.
While I'll admit that once in a while I sometimes do enjoy watching football, the game is exactly a competition played by unionized workers between two corporations. What's really silly is that when teachers organize to help their members try to attain the middle class the GOP cries like they are trying to skin alive every tax payer, while the sport unions creates millionaires for throwing a ball around. That really does show 'the children' what sort of skills are valuable in our society.

--
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
i wan one!! by ticktickboom · 2012-02-02 00:06 · Score: 0

free tv! the way it should be. quickly...tv used to be free, commercials paid for the content, long as enough people watched the ads, they were satisfied. today, you have to pay a rather huge sum to get the tv stations, most of it is crap and wouldn't be watched. the commercials don't even make sense for the most part. anyway what did this guy do? he sold something that was shipped to him. it looked ligit....but, it wasn't. this looks like what sopa would look like. jsujt arrest the lot, seize everything. he will get nothing back, destroy his life, long as he didn't pirate (knowingly or not) a tv show and cost the corporation 3852752498567892347614891 trillion dollars. maybe their trying to run the world 100 years in the past...still grasping onto physical things. this is a new age, embrace it
Chinese against piracy? by clickclickdrone · 2012-02-02 00:39 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm amazed the whole thing was instigated by a Chinese company investigating piracy of their service/product. I thought they were the all time king's of ignoring other people's IP?

--
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
1. Re:Chinese against piracy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Apple products are manufactured in China; therefor the Chinese government owns 60% of the facilities based in China. Thusly they are protecting their own interests.