×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SMH Outs Copyright-Violation Hunters As Porn-Pushing Brothers

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the mixed-motives dept.

Media 80

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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

80 comments

And they say romance is dead! (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775106)

"'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!!''

Re:And they say romance is dead! (2)

omglolbah (731566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775390)

That isnt even remotely the nastiest on the net :p

Look up the documentary "Graphic Sexual Horror" about the old (not shut down) site 'insex'...

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#37777014)

A professor torturing professional performers is not really "nastier" than morons claiming to rape girls...though it may be better. Not surprising that government only shuts down the former site, since the moronic is more to its taste.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775680)

So basically they are admitting to encouraging, participating in, and filming rape.

Good job guys.

This extortion racket you concocted isn't going to help you when you are behind bars.

It's only a matter of time.

--
BMO

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775960)

You are aware that this likely isn't actual rape, but simply a portrayal, right? Maybe not your taste, but certainly not illegal.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776352)

Actually in Australia, all simulated sexual violence in porn is illegal. Even simulated-sex non-porn depictions of rape, where it encourages or celebrates rape, is also illegal.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776568)

Much to the annoyance of kinky Australians who like to fantasise about being on either side of this stuff, no doubt...

Re:And they say romance is dead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37778220)

It's not hosted in Australia, and as much as they'd like to control the Internet... they don't. Sorry :(

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#37784704)

Not all rape is violent... this certainly wouldn't be. Also, clearly the default condition is consent. If the young sluts didn't indicate that they didn't want sex then Its All Good(TM)

Re:And they say romance is dead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37787738)

You're joking right? Maybe I'm just not getting the joke, but here goes.

Any time you are physically forcing someone to do something you are being violent. Whether you are threatening to hurt them if they don't give you their money, or confining them to a prison cell, you are being violent. Ergo, physically forcing someone to have sex with you is violence.

No matter how "slutty" someone is being they don't deserve to be raped. Just because someone doesn't follow your social code doesn't mean you can rape them. And no, you do not get out on the technicality of a person not in a mental state where they can give consent.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#37787960)

It's called sarcasm. But screw it, I'll play devils advocate.

"Any time you are physically forcing someone to do something you are being violent."

That is quite a bit more inclusive than the relevant definition. "rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment"

So physically forcing someone isn't enough without it being rough or injurious. In other words, if you didn't walk away with at least bruises there was no violence. And if we are going by the street definition the bar is higher and limited to an actual physical attempt to inflict harm on you. Sex isn't harmful.

In the case of someone who is drunk or drugged you aren't likely to need to be rough or injurious because they aren't likely to resist. So you are simply having sex with them.

"And no, you do not get out on the technicality of a person not in a mental state where they can give consent."

You are trying to convict on the technicality that they aren't in a mental state where they can withdraw consent and making the assumption that it is withdrawn by default. You don't have to ask for permission to fuck her any more than you do to kiss her. You just kiss her and if she doesn't say no or pull away its consensual. And lets not forget, nobody is forcing her to drink to the point of drunken slumber when alone with a guy who has been trying to fuck her all night. She consented by choosing to do so because the outcome in inevitable.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37788386)

I know you were playing, but for consent not to be withdrawn it must be capable of being withdrawn. If our drugged or drunk young slut is incapable of withdrawing consent, she is incapable of giving it, legally. Same as a child. And any form of coercion in sex is illegal in porn in Australia, even simulated. "Refused classification", same status as child porn. So our friendly neighbourhood Porn Brothers went from trading hacked accounts (also probably illegal in Australia, unauthorised access and all that), to peddling porn that is illegal in the very country they live, to Defending the Law from Dread Pirates.

Colour me unimpressed with the height of their moral ground.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37787582)

Kiwi's are often deported for simple illegal acts. Australia deports more New Zealand citizens than any other followed by the UK.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776778)

Drugged sex is non-consensual sex, and thus rape.

Have a nice day.

--
BMO

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776964)

Yes, but this is all phoney and staged. The fact that you believe it's real is hilarious.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37777408)

See FatLittleMonkey's post further up the thread.

You seem to forget that they were going to make small breasted porn illegal in Australia because of kiddie porn moral panic.

--
BMO

Re:And they say romance is dead! (2)

urbanheretic (1138845) | more than 2 years ago | (#37785442)

You might actually find that small breasted porn is considered a 'fetish', and therefore unable to be given an R-18 rating in Australia according to the classification guidelines, and is recognised as X-18, which, depending on the state government concerned may or may not be illegal to sell. So technically, it already is...

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781434)

So if two people who are drunk, or on another drug, and then have sex; then did they rape each other?

Re:And they say romance is dead! (3, Funny)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37783392)

Of course not, according to the courts it is impossible for a woman to rape a man...

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 2 years ago | (#37789526)

Not according to our courts it's not. The Sexual Offences Act is explcitly framed to be neutral as to the sex of the people involved.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37793630)

In the US, the argument came down to: Did you get hard? Then you wanted it.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#37784716)

That's a BS policy. Consent is the default, if she didn't withdraw consent theres nothing to see here.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37786894)

That's a BS policy. Consent is the default, if she didn't withdraw consent theres nothing to see here.

You would think that at of all places, /. would appreciate that opt-in is better policy than opt-out.

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

hexadecimate (761789) | more than 2 years ago | (#37787742)

So when you're drugged into unconsciousness and then ass-raped you'll be just fine with that. Silence = consent, after all. Right.

Here's hoping you get to put those principles of yours to the test!

Re:And they say romance is dead! (0)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776916)

Lol this idiot actually thinks the premises of porn sites are actually real. You do realize it's all staged and that 90% of the "amateurs" are porn stars, right? You don't seriously think bangbus is just picking up perfect strangers, right?

Re:And they say romance is dead! (0)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37777556)

It's obvious that you are a fan of rape films.

You should get that looked at before it grows into a malignancy.

--
BMO

Re:And they say romance is dead! (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780534)

So you're saying Media Rights Group is really just a natural continuation for their existing line of business? Locate the helpless and rape them?

Makes sense (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775232)

Not content with having their actors get fucked up the ass, now they want everyone else to be fucked up the ass too.

Italian devils strike again (-1, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775280)

I warned you .. do not allow Italians on outr nation's internet! Did you listen? No. Now they are up to their usual Italian nefarious devilishness, stealing our freedom and our women for their islamocommunist homosexual indoctrination/buggery camps in Mexico. Don't say I didn't warn you!

OK, they're scum (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775386)

Considering the way the Australian government casually seems to strip people of their rights, they'll probably still find a lot of support in Canberra.

I don't try to understand the government in Australia .. so strange.

Down Under (2)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775408)

"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 [pirateparty.org.au] for free. That is the only way to stop this madness; the same-old, same-old parties will never give in.

Anything for a quick buck (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775412)

They probably saw how much moolah the American operations were raking in and decided that they wanted in on the copyright racket as well. I mean, claiming losses equal to the GNP of a small country? You cannot let such a chance go unused! They probably are not making as much money on their porn and illegal license key operations as they used to anyway.

Re:Anything for a quick buck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775468)

personally I try to be able to claim gains as big as the GNP of a small country, would be way better for me.

Follow the money.... (4, Interesting)

Constantin (765902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775454)

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.

Re:Follow the money.... (2)

tommy8 (2434564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775626)

It hasn't worked out to well for the porn kingpins cuz the internet is filled with free porn streaming over 'tube' sites.

Re:Follow the money.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776098)

In recent years, yes. I've followed posts on GFY with a ton of webmasters that constantly rage over the "illegal" (their words) tube sites. They are allegedly having issues taking them down, probably because a good number of them are hosted outside the US. Generally if you run a tube site, the rest of the industry shuns you unless you're one of the larger TGP sites that uses their tube sites primarily for getting referrals and don't show a complete rip of the movie.

Re:Follow the money.... (4, Insightful)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775832)

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.

DRM is inherently breakable. You have to crack it open to use it. There is a legal way to do this, and an illegal way to do this, but one way or another, they're handing the keys to the same party they're attempting to restrict. Social factors, such as the powers of the State, or user apathy/co-operation, are THE ONLY thing that allows DRM to work.

Re:Follow the money.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776730)

\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.

It is not an illusion. They are pursuing their "hobby" in the privacy of their own home. Well, until I made all those mobile porn apps. Now, they can enjoy it with more mobility.

You're welcome.

Re:Follow the money.... (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37777732)

Um no, you're wrong about DRM. Most porn studios never embraced DRM and almost none of the uses it today. It never was worth their time as it just took a single technical minded customer seeding torrents of their stuff to break it, so why bother? If it was true that content providers could rake in the dough simply by not using DRM, "embracing digital media" by making streaming and payment processing effortlessly and convenient, they would be swimming in billions.

Re:Follow the money.... (1)

Mista2 (1093071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781414)

I thought that mostly they were raking in the dollars?

Re:Follow the money.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37784320)

Porn is a lot smaller and lot less profitable than purveyors like to think

This is sad (5, Insightful)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775520)

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.

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775750)

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.

How about "the plaintiffs are rape porn producers"?

Re:This is sad (2)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775932)

And let's not forget that password hacking service. Face it, even if the porn had been "normal" these are not Mama's finest boys.

Re:This is sad (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37777198)

Since it's all staged, so what? It may not be what you like, but it's no more real than bangbus or milf hunter or any of the rest of the phoney and staged premises to every porn site.

Re:This is sad (5, Insightful)

rezac (733345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776210)

It's called the Clean Hands Doctrine. And yes it is very relevant that the "plaintiffs" to-be are trading in borderline illegal activities and otherwise unsavory characters.

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37784622)

Which simply makes the "Clean Hands Doctrine" a crime since it is still a logical fallacy, additionally violates the constitution, and thereby undermines all the legal system stands for. And everyone employing it is hence a criminal.

But I guess you'd accept anything as a universal irrevocable rule, as long as it has a official-sounding name and is written down is a "law" book. That way you don't have to think about what's right and wrong for yourself.
But you're not alone. Most people today have no own system of values anymore. Hell, they don't even have their own self-learned model of reality anymore, but that of their favorite "news" source. That's why we don't call them "individuals" anymore. They've given that up. They're meat with eyes.

Re:This is sad (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37785278)

It's interesting that prejudgment is a logical fallacy but implicitly assuming that you're better than everyone and that they're all sheep is not a fallacy. Tell me straight, can you honestly say that previous law breaking doesn't correlate at all with future law breaking?

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839688)

The only one assuming anything, is you. You assumed that I was just assuming what is a proven fact. Yes, I AM better than just about everyone.
Also, we were not talking abot previous law breaking but about previous "borderline" stuff and "unsavory characters". Things like "we don't like your type around here" and "he's black so he *must* steal something" or "he's a jew/irani, so he *must* be lying". Which *still* is deeply wrong.

Oh, and now you can tell me: What the hell did this have to do with my comment again?

Re:This is sad (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794424)

"Which simply makes the "Clean Hands Doctrine" a crime since it is still a logical fallacy, additionally violates the constitution, and thereby undermines all the legal system stands for. "

You know we are talking about Australia and not the US right?

Re:This is sad (2)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776832)

...and Password hacking sites - Which are used to break into copyright material that the law they are trying to push is designed to stop

So not ad hominem, but Tu quoque

 

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37777132)

The point is not ad hominem argument, the point is that this is a higher level of revenue business. You can read - nobody went to the court, everyone better paid some 1k$. This way this business will again get even more profit.

Re:This is sad (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37780670)

However, in this case it's a natural rebuttal for someone claiming to have the moral/ethical high ground. It's not "your arguments are wrong because you're a pig", it's "your claim to be morally superior is untrue because you commercialize rape porn".

Re:This is sad (4, Informative)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 2 years ago | (#37781874)

The /. summary can easily be confused for ad hominem arguments, TFA cannot. It's one of those rare quality pieces of journalism.

The porn background is absolutely core to the notion that the organisation is being set up with the intention to issue legal letters encouraging people to pay a fee to avoid humiliation of being taken to court for pirating porn. Or, as the House of Lords succinctly described it: ''straightforward legal blackmail".

The secretive, murky background to the individuals and their organisations is also highly relevant to the above.

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37784756)

My initial reaction on seeing the summary on /. whilst at work was that the quote should not be on the front page of /. My second thought was that I am not going to read this at work!

Having read TFA later, I agree with DaveGod; this looks like very good journalism, in-depth tracing of numerous interrelated companies across at least 3 countries. Incitement of rape is an entirely different level of criminality than mere porn, or torrenting of hollywood movies. A totally different level.

I still think that /. crossed the line by quoting that text on the front page. That is a seriously poor editorial decision. It was wrong to include that text on the front page of /..

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37792074)

Yeah, obviously. But it's still damned funny.

shock and awe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775800)

I dunno, did the summary really need that rather graphic excerpt?

I'm not a prude, and I watch my share of pron, but that was a bit over the top for a news blog that I read at work.

and now they've really debased themselves (2)

swschrad (312009) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775860)

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!

We Finally Admit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776300)

that porn drives the Internet.

Porn... Meh (2)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776672)

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.

Re:Porn... Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37786522)

how much less could you care?

Re:Porn... Meh (2)

mgblst (80109) | more than 2 years ago | (#37787472)

> I could really care less about the porn thing

I could care less about grammar as well, which means that I do care about grammar, unlike yourself.

article abstract (2)

inquist (2489806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37779296)

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.

Re:article abstract (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780030)

grow up

Re:article abstract (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37780392)

You get ostridged a lot, don't you.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...