Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Apple TV Operation Nabbed In Australia
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."
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.
How is content hosted in china but streamed via US servers? That statement doesn't make much sense.
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?
...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.
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.
Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. Where can I get one of these?
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.
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.
Its only several hundred adult films, not several thousand.
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.
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.
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
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.
Australia is not in the UK.
I appologize. I blame my US education for my ignorance of geography.
my mom posts on slashdot.
And then another $50 a month??? How much more does the legit service cost?
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
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.
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?!
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!
then the OFLC^W^W^W^WCOB^W^W^W Classification Board will eat them for breakfast.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Such as IBM, Apple, GE, Dell, etc. deserve what is coming to them.
Big piles of money?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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?
We should be so lucky.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
That's what worries me. When Britain becomes a republic, does that mean Her Royal Highness will move here to Australia for good? ;)
11% of Americans could not find America
*removes sunglasses* Mother of god...
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.
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.
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.
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".
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"
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.
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."
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
James I of England and VI of Scotland
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.
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.
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.
Not sure about movies, but they do remake American TV shows in China. They are obvious, and poorly produced copies.
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.