Beta
×

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!

US Embassy Sanctioned Lawsuit Against Aussie ISP iiNet

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the conspiracy-against-the-laity-part-XVXIIIX dept.

Australia 263

New submitter Elenor writes with this story (excerpted) from TorrentFreak, another nugget gleaned from the cables made public by WikiLeaks: "The Canberra Wikileaks cables have revealed that the U.S. Embassy sanctioned a conspiracy by Hollywood studios to target Australian communications company iiNet through the local court-system, with the aim of establishing a binding common-law precedent which would make ISPs responsible for the unauthorised file-sharing of their customers. Both the location, Australia, and the target, iiNet, were carefully selected. A precedent set in Australia would be influential in countries with comparable legal systems such as Canada, India, New Zealand and Great Britain. Australian telecommunications giant Telstra was judged too large for the purposes of the attack. Owing to its smaller size and more limited resources, iiNet was gauged the perfect candidate." The cable describes no overt action on the part of the American embassy, but the wording is telling: "Mike Ellis, the Singapore-based President for Asia Pacific of the Motion Picture Association ... said MPAA did not see any role for Embassy at this time, but wanted to keep us informed."

cancel ×

263 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow. Get a load of that. (5, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814103)

So, american embassies are MPAA's bitches ?

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (5, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814131)

No, the US govt is the MPAA's bitch.
The US embassy serves the US govt.

As such, the MPAA's cozy relationship with US politicians permits these sorts of things.

No quid pr quo my hairy white ass.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (5, Insightful)

rhook (943951) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814161)

And this is why lobbying and campaign contributions need to be outlawed.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (5, Insightful)

Avarist (2453728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814287)

They might want you to call it 'lobbying and campaign contributions', I call that outright corruption.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814301)

Thuggery, buggery and some skullduggery. Hang on a minute, who are the pirates again?

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814465)

Thuggery, buggery and some skullduggery. Hang on a minute, who are the pirates again?

Jack Sparrow, James Hook, Long John Silver, and Guybrush Threepwood.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (5, Insightful)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814329)

It totally should, although until then I think that iiNet's court victory coupled with the un-earthing of the clandestine activities of the record company & US embassy will hamper any cases brought by the recording industry in the near future. Or is that just wishful thinking?

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814713)

Just wishful thinking.

Look, in the political climate that would even consider Newt Gingrich for president, anything other than overt genocide is going to get a pass.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (5, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814367)

Even better, Australia needs to throw out the US embassies in their country and cut off diplomatic ties. All the other developed nations should do the same, until we can get our act together.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (5, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814665)

Give us a year or two - for now we still buy a little bit of stuff from the USA instead of directly from Asia where it is made. As you guys keep outsourcing it won't be long before there isn't anything we want to buy from the USA.
You can keep the military hardware. We've been conned into buying crap as part of political deals - notably some obsolete but expensive torpedoes that didn't fit our subs until we modified the subs (stupid for torpedoes that are not made any more), some ancient Sea Sprite helicopters that were rubbish in 1975 let alone 2006, and some tanks that we can't even use within our own country without tanker trucks following them around. And don't get me started on the JSF. You may have some good equipment but politics and corruption means that instead of supplying it to your military allies you simply drain their military budgets into the pockets of big contributors and make your military allies buy expensive crap as part of a package deal.
So there you go, you've fucked up your economy so badly that there's nothing much that we want that we can actually buy from the USA.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (4, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814745)

Yep, our tanks are massive gas guzzlers. Those gas turbine engines are kinda cool in that they can run on just about anything, but then they need so much of it that it kinda negates the advantage, unless you happen to be operating those tanks in the middle east right next door to where the oil is being pumped out of the ground.

You can probably get much more cost-effective military hardware from the UK. I used to watch your TV show "Sea Patrol" and they had a really nice UK-made cannon on the patrol boat that could lock on targets with high accuracy even in high seas. Not a bad show; certainly much better than the rubbish we make over here. You should export more of your TV to us. Of course, with so many of us watching crap like The Kardashians and Jerry Springer, even something fairly lowbrow like Sea Patrol would still be way too highbrow for us.

Be careful what you ask for (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814963)

You should export more of your TV to us

We came up with Big Brother and exported it to the world :(
With the tanks the German made Leopards we just retired were superior in a lot of roles, as I'm sure some US made tanks are. However it was a "take it or leave it" package deal that some US Senator was getting rich on. It wasn't as bad as the Sea Sprite fiasco (buying a lot of very expensive and very old helicopters and scrapping them), but that's the sort of thing that gets attached to trade deals.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814989)

You want neighbours! [wikipedia.org] ??!?! Unbelievable.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815185)

we wouldn't have the budget to even send you the tapes via fedex.

film and TV in Australia is fucked. all the talent either gets beaten down in a shitty job, or moves overseas.

our major funding bodies are basically a circle-jerk for friends of people on the board. any funding you get is a poison chalice, because no matter how small the contribution, you have to slap a big ugly logo fullscreen at the end of your film. you also can't get discounts because the government funding requires budgeting to be done by the book, so in some cases you end up paying more (post houses in particular will charge full rates if funding is involved, but obviously not if a person is self-funded).

through all that though, those of us who aren't too jaded can put a decent show together on a shoestring (or bungy-cord steadycam)

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (4, Interesting)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815007)

As you guys keep outsourcing it won't be long before there isn't anything we want to buy from the USA.

We will be still importing billions of aussies worth of US intellectual property (regardless of which manufacturer in which country is collecting it from us). The US govt realised in the 1980s the their manufacturing exports were doomed. Their future would be software and entertainment. That is why the US govt has been so fussed about setting up an international IP regime which they control. That is what the US embassy is doing here trying to hijack Australian common law.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815173)

Australia wants to be the US. Most countries want the good and leave the bad, but Australia desperately wants to be the US, for better or worse. They'll only get more US-like in the next 2-3 years. Sydney is a bland city that could be Boston, other than people in Boston talk funny.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814949)

Riiight because this is the most important thing we have going and therefore should override any other concerns.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814773)

Public campaign, Public campaign finance.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814913)

President Roosevelt tried to warn us against such abuse of power.
How many years ago was that......?

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814453)

I always thought they were one in the same.

The MPAA/RIAA has been playing government since the days of Napster it just took alot of pushing and pulling for people to realize.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (2, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814475)

You guys have it all backwards.

Neither the US embassies, or the US govt is the MPAA's bitches. There is lobbying (read corruption) at play certainly with Senators, which generally as a rule, tend to be complete whores. You tell them this is the dick (the law written by the lobbyists), and to suck it (make it the law), the only thing they ask, "What do I get paid?". Senators do this because it is how they hold on to power, and enjoy the benefits that their positions provide.

One of the reasons why all the branches of government seem to be so willing to cooperate with the MAFIAA is that Intellectual Property and the economic considerations surrounding it are excellent means to camouflage a darker purpose:

More power and tools to the Intelligence Community.

Check out the members of the Intelligence Committee, both former and active. Most are supporters of SOPA, I think only a few have switched sides, and the most "vocal" opponent on the Intelligence Committee is Wyden. That Senator is just the Plan B with his own bill to accomplish the same thing.

Don't confuse a momentary alliance on the part of the US Govt as them being bitches. Government are made up of people, and these people only do what is in their best interests, which often coincide with the interests of the groups they are representing. Whether it be Big Pharma, Military-Industrial Complex, etc.

It has been in the best interests since even before the Cold War began for America to be able to monitor its dissidents (as determined by those people) as closely as possible. See Hoover for references.

Laws disguised as protecting American jobs and the oh-so-poor artists coincidentally give the Intelligence Community a mandate to do even more by proxy then before, and with less legal resistance on the part of the technology sectors.

It's not a coincidence. A truly free Internet does nothing for the Intelligence Community, and they do in fact, see it as a threat.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814489)

Why can't we just cut diplomatic relationship with the US. What the hell do we need those fuckers for ?
They sure aren't producing anything valuable.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (3, Informative)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814537)

No, the US govt is the MPAA's bitch.

More often then not, the AU govt is the US govt's bitch.

Sad but true.

Meanwhile, iinet, the ISP that was sued is going gang busters. They just adsorbed another significant Australian ISP, Internode and it's 100K customers.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814175)

I guess so... wow, we're screwed. sianara free speech

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814213)

So, american embassies are MPAA's bitches ?

Not quite - More like the entire US government will bend over for the highest bidder. The fact that embassies serve our interests abroad, and the MPAA can bid pretty damned high, counts as merely an incidental fact in this situation.

Ironically enough, as a consequence, we may do better with the personally-richer candidate in any election, because it will cost more for them to take any potential buyer seriously. But at this point, it looks more and more like we have only one of the traditional "boxes" of democracy remaining.

Seriously? We have Hollywood publicly admitting an expectation of quid pro quo for its "campaign contributions" and now this, and the government doesn't give the least bit of a flying fuck. Welcome to the end of the modern experiment. At least we went the "Marie Antoinette", rather than the "thermonuclear global holocaust", route.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814431)

The number of posts mentioning revolution (on the sites I visit at least) has sky-rocketed in the last year or so. Between OWS, the banks, etc, trashing your economy, your government obviously bought by big businesses of one sort or another, and your jobs auctioned off overseas, I think it may be inevitable. If the government is paying attention, I'd expect a big push for some "anti-gun" legislation in the next couple of years.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (4, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814651)

Against the US military? Are you KIDDING? Guns won't do anything productive other than cost lives. IF this country somehow manages a revolution, it will NEED to be nonviolent.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (4, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814807)

The military is not the problem, I imagine that most will not participate but rather join the resistance.

What we have to worry about is the militarization of existing police forces and the rise of private security companies authorized to operate inside the U.S. There are large numbers of people who blindly obey anything authority tells them (thank you childhood-indoctrinated religion!) and will act as a snitch network of saboteurs alongside private military and the members of police forces who decided to turn traitor. People who look the slightest bit suspicious or out-of-place would be disappeared overnight.

What is going on now is that all of the groundwork is being laid for the "Homeland Security" complex to be able to "manage disasters." They feed us with bullshit like "hurricanes" and "terrorist attacks," but their focus has unsurprisingly shifted towards the "lone wolf" terrorist - former soldiers who have witnessed their friends being turned into hamburger now have to come home to being groped up by TSA pigs and stopped at highway checkpoints(like those won't bring back memories of the war and trigger PTSD symptoms...).

Legislation and political action are doing nothing for the common citizen. If things don't change and continue to get worse, I'll wager that the shit will hit the fan before 2020, and sooner than that if another false-flag attack happens. We could probably even see certain coastal states attempt to secede from the union.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815239)

return of the pinkertons.

great.... ;(

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815249)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_TIPS [wikipedia.org]

I don't believe, at all, that it went away. it simply went underground.

citizens spying on each other: its every administration's wet dream.

"democracy and freedom are quaint old ideas. not suitable for the modern age. we need to make sure that those in power STAY in power!"

HARUMPH.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814809)

Revolution side only needs to 'take out' key figures from the Gov't Side to win
Gov't Side needs to take out a large precentage of Revolutionary side to win.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814899)

Yeah. I mean, the military is monolithic in the US. All those soldiers are definitely going to side with the government. Because none of them would hesitate to get into a firefight with other US citizens.

How many personnel do you think the US military has? It's about 1.5 million active, and another 1 million reserve. Of which, significant percentages are unlikely to have touched a firearm since leaving basic training, because their military jobs are non-combat (and they're not Marines). And there definitely aren't 350 million Americans for rebels to hide amongst.

Further... should the US government resort to bombs, aircraft, tanks, and the like .. they will only serve to make more of the populace resentful of an overbearing government. If the government is okay with that, we're wellllllll past the point of having a chance of getting them out nonviolently. And if the US gov, or at least the leaders at the top of it, are okay with being kings of trash heap, that's bad for those of us who survive and now have to live in that trash heap. But it'll be incredibly good for the rest of the world, because trash heaps are really difficult places to generate the economic weight necessary to form/resist leverage in international negotiation.

Besides which.. the US government is DESIGNED to be a nonviolent revolution. Routinely. Which is why we're here now, with more violent revolutionary comments and thoughts becoming somewhat more commonplace, hoping to break the cruft and corruption out of the routine nonviolent revolution.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815225)

a non-violent revolution can't happen anymore.

ie, the ones in power simply handing over power?

are you HIGH???

once things get this bad, its gonna cost lives. lots and lots of them.

its not what we want! but its what must happen if we are to restore balance to the world again. ...and I hope its outside my lifetime. I do NOT want to see this happen! but I do fear that it will happen, only a matter of 'when'.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814851)

Anti-gun legislation will never happen. We have reached the point of no return of accepting anymore limits on firearm ownership. To enact such a thing would require the government to try and disarm those who are currently very well armed. Also the US is still ranked the number 1 manufacturer in the world and there has been a slow but steady increase in over the past 4 years of foreign countries moving their manufacturing jobs back to the US. Being in the software development industry for over 26 years I have also noted that a lot of companies, both big and small, are reducing their dependence on off-shore resources. The vast majority of the good developers from foreign countries have already relocated to the US leaving behind only the resources that prove the point that you get what you pay for. Governments and economies, both domestic and international, have always fluctuated up and down in cycles for various reasons. And every time people have predicted the end of the world.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815153)

Anti-gun legislation will never happen.

Nonsense! Get two more left-wing Supremes onto the Court, and the D.C. vs Heller decision would be overturned in a minute.

And most of the Dems in both the Senate and House would be delighted to pass gun ban/registration/confiscation laws once they were sure the Supremes would be on their side.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814945)

Guns can be obtained overseas, that's a solved problem. A bigger problem is taking down the most well-funded military on the planet. Without at least some support from the inside it would be practically impossible to defeat them, not only because they have big guns but also a tactical advantage with the many satellites and UAVs.

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814527)

rather than the "thermonuclear global holocaust", route

Buy this token government now and we'll throw in 6 free biologically engineered flu viruses. But wait, there's more!!

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814399)

More like their high-priced whores.

For just $250,000, you too can have a special one-on-one encounter with your Congressmen! Just call 1-900-FREEDOM for more details!!

Re:Wow. Get a load of that. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815247)

The U.S. embassy did not actually play a role in this, and at no point in the cable do they say that they actually support this case, or plan on offering the MPAA any assistance. All they do was report back to Washington what the MPAA was up to, say they'd keep watch on how it developed. Anyway you don't have to take my word from it, here's the complete cable.

C O N F I D E N T I A L CANBERRA 001197

SIPDIS

STATE PLEASE PASS USTR

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/01/2018
TAGS: KIPR ECPS ECON ETRD AS
SUBJECT: FILM/TV INDUSTRY FILES COPYRIGHT CASE AGAINST
AUSSIE ISP

REF: CANBERRA 1173 (NOTAL)

Classified By: AMBASSADOR ROBERT D. MCCALLUM JR, REASON 1.4 (B, D)

1. (C) Summary: On November 20 several media companies filed
legal action against Australia's #3 internet service provider
(ISP) iiNet, seeking a ruling that iiNet has infringed
copyright by not taking reasonable steps to prevent
unauthorized use of films and TV programs by its customers.
This is the first such case filed in Australia. The case was
filed by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft
(AFACT) on behalf of the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA) and its international affiliate, the Motion
Picture Association (MPA), but does not want that fact to be
broadcasted. Initial reactions support MPAA's claim that it
has a strong legal case. End Summary.

A NEW LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST PIRACY AIMS AT ISP

2. (U) On November 20 the Australian Federation Against
Copyright Theft (AFACT) announced that several media firms
had filed a case in the Federal Court of Australia against
iiNet, Australia's third largest ISP, for "failing to take
reasonable steps, including enforcing its own terms and
conditions, to prevent known unauthorised use of copies of
the companies' films and TV programs by iiNet's customers via
its network." The action was filed by Village Roadshow (an
Australian company that produces and distributes movies and
DVDs, among other activities), Universal Pictures, Warner
Brothers Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures
Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Disney
Enterprises, and the Seven Network (one of Australia's three
major over-the-air television networks and a licensee of some
of the infringed works). Proceedings will be back before the
court on December 17; a ruling is unlikely before the end of
2009.

3. (U) This is the first such case to be filed in Australian
courts. iiNet claims that it is protected by the "safe
harbor" provisions of the Copyright Act - i.e., ISPs are
merely common carriers of traffic, so the dispute is between
copyright owners and violators. iiNet said in its media
release response that it routinely turns over to the police
evidence of piracy on its network.

THE REST OF THE STORY

4. (C) Despite the lead role of AFACT and the inclusion of
Australian companies Village Roadshow and the Seven Network,
this is an MPAA/American studios production. Mike Ellis, the
Singapore-based President for Asia Pacific of the Motion
Picture Association, briefed Ambassador on the filing on
November 26. Ellis confirmed that MPAA was the mover behind
AFACT's case (AFACT is essentially MPAA's Australian
subcontractor; MPAA/MPA have no independent, formal presence
here), acting on behalf of the six American studios involved.
MPAA prefers that its leading role not be made public.
AFACT and MPAA worked hard to get Village Roadshow and the
Seven Network to agree to be the public Australian faces on
the case to make it clear there are Australian equities at
stake, and this isn't just Hollywood "bullying some poor
little Australian ISP."

5. (C) Why iiNet? Ellis said they were the right target on
several levels. First, they are big enough to be important -
iiNet is the third largest ISP in Australia. (Telstra,
owners of top Australian ISP BigPond which has about half of
the market, are the "big guns", Ellis admitted. It was clear
Ellis did not want to begin by tangling with Telstra,
Australia's former telecom monopoly and still-dominant player
in telephony and internet, and a company with the financial
resources and demonstrated willingness to fight hard and
dirty, in court and out.) Ellis also said iiNet users had a
particularly high copyright violation rate, and that its
management has been consistently unhelpful on copyright
infringements.

6. (C) Ellis described the case as "very strong." He said
AFACT delivered to iiNet every week for five weeks a
"telephone directory"-sized list of violations complete with
a DVD with "gigabytes" of data on infringers using iiNet's
network. Ellis said iiNet did nothing against any of its
users after being presented with this and other evidence.
AFACT/MPAA have hired Australia's top copyright lawyer,
Michael Williams of Gilbert & Tobin, to represent them in
this case. Williams, well-known to the Mission and highly
respected in the Australian legal community, was the lawyer
behind the successful Cooper and Kazaa IPR cases in
Australia.

7. (C) Ellis said he had told Communications Minister Stephen
Conroy a few months ago that absent action by the ISPs or
GOA, the industry "would have to do something" rather than
let movies and TV "go the way of music" on the internet. He
said Conroy had been clear that he "had other priorities"
(i.e., rolling out the National Broadband Network, reftel).
Ellis said MPAA did not see any role for Embassy at this
time, but wanted to keep us informed.

REACTION MIXED

8. (SBU) Media reaction to the case has been mixed. It
includes some predictable criticisms of AFACT's resort to
legal challenges as doomed to be ineffective, and
exhortations that the best way to combat piracy is for the
movie and TV industries to adapt to the digital age and make
their products more readily available for download at
reasonable prices and conditions. A couple of legal analysts
writing on copyright and media-oriented Australian websites
have concluded that iiNet's position is very weak, in
particular its reliance on "safe harbor" provisions. They
noted that AFACT had given iiNet five thick logbooks and DVDs
full of data about iiNet users infringing movie and TV
program copyrights. However, they also recognize that this
is the first case filed under the relevant portions of the
Copyright Act since it was amended in 2007 - so there is no
legal precedent.

9. (C) Comment: Ellis and MPAA see this as a major test
case, and not necessarily their final legal move in
Australia, which does have very high rates of illegal movie
and television show downloads, in part because of the
sometimes long gaps between their release in the US and their
arrival in Australian theaters or on local television. Ellis
said it could be followed up by similar filings in other
Commonwealth countries. We will monitor this case as it
unfolds, for its IPR implications and also to see whether or
not the "AFACT vs. the local ISP" featured attraction spawns
a "giant American bullies vs. little Aussie battlers" sequel.
Qa "giant American bullies vs. little Aussie battlers" sequel.
  End comment.

Look it up (1)

rossjudson (97786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814169)

Sanctioned: Give official permission or approval for (an action). Impose a sanction or penalty on.

Conspiracy: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. The action of plotting or conspiring.

I just read the cable, and nowhere in there is there any "sanctioning" going on. Conspiracy? Guess that depends on your point of view.

Re:Look it up (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814753)

Conspiracy: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. The action of plotting or conspiring.

I cant read the cable at work but...

Conspiracy certainly fits. It was a plan to do something harmful and unlawful in many was too. Their entire plan was to force compliance to their rules by attempting to financially punish companies. The fact that this did not work doesn't change their intent.

Re:Look it up (2)

black6host (469985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815015)

I can't read the cable from the link in the article linked to in the summary. You start reading and all of a sudden up pops a plea for money and a video supporting same. I'm sure it could be easily circumvented but damn, hard to get the word out when you won't let readers read the damn cable. Yes, I know, the world needs money (as do Assange and Wikileaks) to go round and round but blocking the important information (to some) is counter productive to what they're trying to accomplish.

Here is the link:

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/11/08CANBERRA1197.html/ [wikileaks.org]

Funny, I can't get to the link from the url above, something about maintenance.

  Works just fine if you go to the link from the following paragraph from the article:

"The Canberra Wikileaks cables revealed the US Embassy sanctioned a [conspiracy by Hollywood studios] (This is the linking text) to target Australian communications company iiNet through the local court-system, with the aim of establishing a binding common-law precedent which would make ISPs responsible for the unauthorised file-sharing of their customers."

See article for link and more info..... I really don't like the way this information is presented by Wikileaks, or not presented in my case.

Re:Look it up (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815209)

harmful and unlawful

That's the key phrase here.

So, harmful? Yeah, financially punishing companies is harmful.

Illegal? Haven't seen any real evidence of that...

Yet.

Until you do, it's not a conspiracy either.

Re:Look it up (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815241)

Agreed, there's no sanctioning here. The MPAA told the US Ambassador to Australia what it was up to -- including the fact that the MPAA was the real principal in the lawsuit despite the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft being the official one. I doubt anyone reading Slashdot is shocked in more than a Claude Raines sense about that.

The Ambassador then reported this fact to the higher-ups in Washington, DC. In the cable, he does not take a position on the case.

Why would the MPAA tell the US Ambassador what they were up to? Most likely, I'd say, because if it blew up in their face, they wanted the embassy to be able to respond sensibly, and not reflexively deny only to be made liars of. The MPAA obviously wants to remain friendly with the US State department.

Right on time! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814183)

As I post this, it's almost 10:00am on Wednesday, January 24 in Perth, Australia where iiNet is headquartered.

How many Aussies will take to the streets after reading this? Ehhhh... there's one! Oh, that's just a pedestrian... how about that one?!! Nope. Going to his car.

(sound of crickets)

(fade to black)

Re:Right on time! (4, Interesting)

grcumb (781340) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814647)

(sound of crickets)

Well, I don't know about Perth, but in Ballarat last week, Ben Powell delivered an excellent run-down on the status of the AFACT v iiNet case [youtube.com] to a fairly large and very interested audience.

Re:Right on time! (4, Insightful)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814653)

Well keep in mind that iiNet, in the end, won its case. If they'd lost, and then this was revealed, then perhaps there would be a bit more of an outcry. So our least our courts gave the MPAA a bit of a smackdown...

(Not to mention the fact that I'd read this story in the newspaper at least three or four days ago, Slashdot is slow on the uptake!)

Re:Right on time! (2)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814779)

How many Aussies will take to the streets after reading this?

Well after seeing the story here I forwarded it onto my cousin who is a state member of the Greens. So I can say that at least 1 politician will have seen it.

Re:Right on time! (2)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814805)

Hmm in hindsight .. "Member" doesn't sound like I meant it to. I meant a member of the Greens party and not a Member for the Greens. Sorry for any confusion.

Political consequences? (5, Interesting)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814189)

Passing laws backed by the MPAA is usually a detriment to the victim country's economy (as seen with SOPA) and the quality of life in that country for it's citizens, which will make them unhappy with their government (as rising anger about these laws indicates).

As such it can be seen as economic and political sabotage of foreign countries.

For the US embassy to take part in that, couldn't this seen as a hostile act by the victim country?

Re:Political consequences? (3, Funny)

Kinky Bass Junk (880011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814219)

For the US embassy to take part in that, couldn't this seen as a hostile act by the victim country?

Only if said victim country wasn't already the US' bitch.

Re:Political consequences? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814529)

Huh? The lawsuit would have to pass muster under the Australian legal system. This is a lawsuit, not a new law. It isn't like we are overtly saying they have to follow a foreign law (which would be a violation of sovereignty). You might argue that the US has influenced law a certain way, but again, the Aussies themselves would have to actually pass the law. Therefore, no, this could not be seen that way.

Unless it could be shown that the intent was to undermine the economy. Evil as the MPAA is, that isn't their intention, just a side effect.

Re:Political consequences? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815057)

For the US embassy to take part in that, couldn't this seen as a hostile act by the victim country?

Just about everything the US does in world politics is a hostile act. The real question isn't "is it a hostile act?" the real question is "do we want to be enemies of the US"

What Crap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814197)

This shows who the real criminals are !! The americans.

Act of War (0, Flamebait)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814215)

Interfering on a foreign country's soil smells of an act of war. Imagine if the roles were reversed? Or they had oil? Look out!!!!

Re:Act of War (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814273)

Australia has oil... they just consume more than they produce

Re:Act of War (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814375)

Considering how small their population is (~10M IIRC), that must not be very much oil.

Re:Act of War (4, Informative)

Alicat1194 (970019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814413)

Considering how small their population is (~10M IIRC), that must not be very much oil.

Almost 23M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia), and apparently we use 946,300 barrels per day (http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=91) making us the 19th highest user in the world.

Re:Act of War (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814815)

Which means that, per capita, we don't consume that much less than the Americans. Makes sense - both big countries with large distances to cover. I think the thing that pushes the Americans over the top is their harsher winters and reliance on heating oil in some areas.

Re:Act of War (1)

teh dave (1618221) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814445)

Actually we have somewhere around 23 million people. (source) [abs.gov.au] Still small though.

Re:Act of War (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814687)

Considering how small their population is (~10M IIRC), that must not be very much oil.

10M? Wow ... you must have 'recalled' that from the 1950s :) Greater Sydney/Newcastle/Wollongong alone is almost bigger than that these days...

Re:Act of War (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814755)

I must have confused them with some other place. Sorry about that.

Re:Act of War (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815025)

Austria has about 10 million people.

Re:Act of War (3, Informative)

VJmes (2449518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814417)

Replace oil with natural gas and you'd be a little closer to the truth.

Re:Act of War (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814891)

Actually Australia produces vastly more natural gas than is used in the local market. There isn't a lot of oil production and most of the known untapped reserves are in deep water a long way offshore.
There are very large oil shale reserves but that shale is so difficult to turn into oil that it's ignorable as a resource - at anything larger than lab scales it's even easier to get a liquid fuel from coal. A pilot plant to attempt to make oil from shale underground did little more than create a big bulge in the ground that had a lot of sulphuric acid in it plus a little trickle of oil soaking deeper into the rock at the bottom.

Re:Act of War (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814589)

Interfering on a foreign country's soil smells of an act of war. Imagine if the roles were reversed? Or they had oil? Look out!!!!

Sweet Jebus,

Not only do we have oil, we have coal, natural gas and uranium.

Re:Act of War (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814769)

Not only do we have oil, we have coal, natural gas and uranium.

And what do you all do? Drive on the wrong side of the road and export Vegemite.

What sort of contribution to civilization is that?

Re:Act of War (1, Troll)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814819)

Not only do we have oil, we have coal, natural gas and uranium.

And what do you all do? Drive on the wrong side of the road and export Vegemite.

What sort of contribution to civilization is that?

Actually, we drive on the correct side of the road and Vegemite is now owned by Kraft, an American company (try some, its good for you).

We also use the metric system and make decent beer like any civilised nation.

Re:Act of War (4, Informative)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814699)

We have a decent amount of oil (but not massive amounts). We do have a shitton of natural gas, coal and the majority of the world's uranium though...

Re:Act of War (4, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814803)

We're used to it - we had a bumbling crop of idiots from the bottom of the US intelligence barrel expose themselves as attempting to remove the leader of Australia in 1975 when he was not only doomed anyway but also had demonstrated that he would roll over and do whatever the USA said (eg. East Timor, US listening posts) with nothing more than a grumble. The only consequences of that were some CIA guys using that as an excuse to sell secrets to the USSR, a movie based roughly on the court case after they were convicted, and a quite decent song by David Bowie.
We know the USA does this sort of stuff. Every few years it inspires a few people to gather outside the US consultate and yell a lot, but mostly we just accept it as part of being an ally of the USA and the nature of portions of the US government being for sale to the highest bidder. East Timor is right on our doorstep so we've got a pretty good reminder that even a President (eg. Ford) can be bought out even by a foreign power (eg. the HUGE donation to the Republican party by the Indonesian President on the day of the invasion and Ford going to Jakarta personally to accept it).
So yes. We're the bitch of the USA, but the USA at times is the bitch of whoever wants to buy your government even if it is a foreign power. I'll bet Rupert Murdoch has bought a few major changes himself.

Your tax dollars at work! (1, Insightful)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814247)

The government is spending your tax money to subvert the laws of a foreign nation in order to increase the profits of a domestic business. I suppose this is considered "pro business" by the neo-conservative types and applauded.

Re:Your tax dollars at work! (4, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814335)

I would say its worse than that.

I live in the US. Our major exports are IP (movies, recordings, blueprints, and software all together in one group), raw food stuffs, military equipment/aviation goodies, and bad legislation.

Eg, other than corrupt factory farm operations, (why's the park smell so stinky mommy? That's just the columbia meat packing plant on the hill dear.) And aerospace + military industrial (lockheed martin, boeing, and pals), intellectual property is about the only relevant industry the US has, other than bullshit like the bank and loan infrastructure.

This is why politicians are all too happy to take bribes err.... "campaign contributions" from those industries, and why they are treated like sacred cows in terms of regulatory compliance issues, and in terms of getting carte blanc with proposing legislation.

The US is anemic as hell. My government knows it. They want golden parachutes for when the shit hits, so they stay cuddly with multinationals.

Re:Your tax dollars at work! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814775)

Movies. Microcode. Pizza Delivery.

(Sausage Pizza, mmmmm).

Enlighten me, please! (3, Interesting)

AnotherAnonymousUser (972204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814265)

Asking a question for the community here: how did Hollywood get the kind of power and leverage that it has? As a major source of media I can see how it would be valued by government but the stories you hear these days of the lobbying power and secret international cables that surface make it seem like they are constantly overstepping the norms of most other industries.

How did it get to the state that it's now, and why is government working so hard to protect media interests internationally so often? Is it the size of Hollywood and consequent lobbying power, a belief that Hollywood is a/the important industry to protect, or something else? Hollywood seems to receive the most benefit from all copyright laws and protections, so how did they get to this amount of power that they can exert this much control over legislation? Even in the old days I know they had the ratings boards that could strong arm quite a lot of policies.

If anyone has any good histories to relate here or relevant anecdotes, please post below!

Re:Enlighten me, please! (4, Insightful)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814381)

Other industries certainly possess as much power. The defence industry is involved a lot when it comes to foreign policies (who gets to buy which weapons, which decides the fate of entire countries).
Big oil companies too can get what they want easily, for example rights to drill wherever they want.

But in those cases it is real power, created by the scarcity and importance of their products. They don't need to push for laws, or do extreme lobbying, because they already wield that power and no one is going to take it from them soon.

The power of media companies is mostly artificial. No on really needs them, they created the demand for their services themselves.
That must be why they push so hard for laws. It's a desperate move to tie themselves into everything, so they can't be easily disposed off.

Re:Enlighten me, please! (2)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814387)

They have video of all the orgies with the hookers and blow.

By the BALLS man!

Re:Enlighten me, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814565)

Watch Citizen Kane. Realize that Hollywood gets more eyeballs than the papers.

Also don't forget that there is a contingent of politicians who make hay out of opposing Hollywood policy. That encourages the rest to buy out others for protection.

Re:Enlighten me, please! (5, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814603)

Time for some Peabody's improbable history, so step into the wayback machine Sherman, and let's look at the US as it was 100 years ago.

In 1912, the US was a heavily invested industrial nation, specializing in steel, oil refinement, textiles, industrial machinery, and scientific advancements. It had reached this status through the addage "you get what you pay for", and "the american way." (Which back then meant taking pride in your work, producing only quality goods, and being judged by the quality of your work and of your word. This motif was euphamistically referred to as free market capitalism, since it relied on heavy competition between stakeholders to provide only the finest goods at prices that were reasonable, and the buyers bought for quality and durability. Your products directly influenced your brand's desirability.)

Over the course of the next 30 to 40 years, these industries vied heavily with one another, eliminating competition, and then reached a certain threshold where they realized that competing with one another was counter productive to producing profits. This is pre rico act, pre sherman act. These idustries had established a thriving local enconomy based on quality goods, which people had become accustomed to buying, and which had greatly improved the quality of living of their native demographic populations. As such, worker wages had gone up, unions had formed, and other "this hurts our profits" influences surfaced. (Additionally, the depression caused many contenders to go under, allowing for a "land grab" by the survivors, accellerating the development of the oligopoly.)

At first, these companies agreed to not poach each other's profits through initiating pricewars, and instead agreed that they would increase the wealth of their directors and financiers through the reduction of quality in the merchandise produced. As quality dropped, the need for employees that had grown up on an ethic for perfection waned, and with that, the ethic itself also waned. Eventually, the only real characteristic that differentiated a us worker from a cheap foriegn one was the price of employment.

Skip ahead another 30 to 40 years, after the momentary military industrial booms of the 30s and 40s, to the 60s and 70s. "Deregulation" was the buzzword. Restrictions that had been put in place to protect american citizens from corporate interests were discarded like used toilet paper. Trade tarrifs dropped like sleezy curtains at a peep show. Outsourcing began.

Over the next 30 to 40 years, most of america's manufacturing industry had flown the coop, electing to capitalize on the post free love generation's niavite' and inherited buying power with cheaply made foreign built products. Buying american made started getting much much harder. Even commodity items like clothes and shoes couldn't compete with the cheaper, and often inferior foriegn labor that was made protiable by dropping the trade tarrif walls. The old vangard of US corporate power had officially left the US.

In the wake of the second world war, the US motion picture and recording industries sprang into being, thanks to the developments in film and radio technologies, coupled with the obvious propoganda potentials of those mediums. In the ww2 and post era, these industries flourished while the old industrial center declined. The US work ethic had diminished to such an extent by the 60s, that entertainment and pleasure were basically the primary motivational force in people's lives. The idolization of hollywood actors and actresses really came alive. This generation was blinded by hollywood and television, greedily assimilated the "disposable goods" philosophy, and the media industry grew like crazy. (There is no coincidence that this is the golden age of filmography and music in the US. The vast majority of holdings of those industries were created during this time frame. It was a perfect storm for the entertainment industry.) During this time, the technology to really export entertainment to other countries came into being, thanks to improvements in broadcast and film technologies. Hollywood really earned a name for itself in other countries.

Hollywood had become a major player in us politics, though it didn't quite realize it yet.

Capitalizing on international distributions of their properties, these industries came to realize that advances in the technologies that had enabled their new market to grow was now als eroding their highly profitable exclusives business, since cheap film materials, cheap and high quality means of duplication, and the like started appearing. This is when these industries started whispering into the ears of government officials, and playing with campaign contributions. (Bribes.)

It is now the 80s. The riaa likens the cassette tape to jack the ripper. Vhs has the mpaa shitting blood. Walt disney looks anxiously at their "copyright prblem", and the wheels of government manipulation start really turning. By this time the deregulaton policies of 20 years ago are now widely accepted in government, and the *aa's have had plenty of time to learn the ropes.

The next 20 years to the present are just more of the same, with those industries fighting to keep their media empires, and bribing politicians to make it happen. Mickey Mouse avoids the public domain twice. DMCA gets passed, et al.

Now, wasn't that a fun ride Sherman?

Re:Enlighten me, please! (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814877)

Some pretty big holes in your thesis there guy. For example the US is still the biggest manufacturing nation in the world.

It's also second only to China in exports, and is currently enjoying job growth despite popular misconceptions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/business/us-manufacturing-is-a-bright-spot-for-the-economy.html [nytimes.com]

http://business.time.com/2011/03/10/can-china-compete-with-american-manufacturing/ [time.com]

Re:Enlighten me, please! (3, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814979)

But other than weapons grade items (bombs, rifles, other killing appliances) and highly regulated products (aviation, automotive) can you name a single us made durable good that is world renouned for quality?

It used to be that many products were known that way.

Re:Enlighten me, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815133)

Caterpillar. I think that covers several, actually.

Re:Enlighten me, please! (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815159)

Caterpillar predominantly makes industrial motorvehicles. (Fork lifts, back hoes, trenchers, etc.) These are government regulated. Hence, excluded.

Try again.

Re:Enlighten me, please! (3, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815195)

Also, read their abridged company history, then contrast to my quick and dirty improbable history.

http://www.cat.com/about-the-company [cat.com]

Note, it is a relic from the 1950s, post military industrial boom. It is a relic from the durable goods era, and predates the disposable goods era. Rather than leave the us, it expanded into a niche market and stayed there.

Re:Enlighten me, please! (2)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814737)

Hollywood helped the US government win two wars for the "hearts and the minds" -- the WWII, mostly domestically, and the Cold war internationally. It has been the most important piece of the propaganda machine available to the US government for nearly seven decades.

If you want the full story, Lawrence Lessig has a good and free book on the open culture with a chapter or two dedicated to the topic.

Ahh, the irony. (1)

SwampChicken (1383905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814279)

They're hunting down baddies around the globe without realising they're the ones that are giving them their orders.

Role of Mark Arbib? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814425)

And what role did Mark Arbib play? He is an Australian senator, who is essentially a US spy. The wikileaks cables have revealed that he is in the habit of revealing secret information to the US embassy, to the extent that that the US assigned him a code name as an informant. Has Arbib been behind the scenes doing the MPAA/US government's bidding, shoring up sympathy in the Australian government?

Doesn't that also mean that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814471)

This goes back to that old suctupidity of saying that the hardware store that sells a hammer to someone, who then kills somebody with it, is responsible for the death.
Extrapolate that out and the music industry would be responsible for piracy given that they provide the content that people then copy.

Humm... another reason why they censored Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814483)

So now that Wikileaks has been effectlivelly censored after the "ohh, releasing confidential govt info is so irresponsible" campaign the US govt may be safe from this kind of embarrassment in the future.

The press can't be censored but Wikileaks can? Why did the US accept even to discuss censoring a site like Wikileaks?

You can dislike Julian Assange all you like (5, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814509)

Regardless, it's things like this which makes Wikileaks absoloutely a very very important web site for the entire internet. I'm very glad this information has been revealed.

Re:You can dislike Julian Assange all you like (2)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814613)

Yes, I still think that Assange is a dangerous, mentally ill douchebag, but OTOH, there is no denying the public benefit of seeing some of these cables (as embarrasing and damaging as that may be to the US' legitimate interests).

I don't donate a cent to WikiLeaks, but they deserve at least a little credit.

Re:You can dislike Julian Assange all you like (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815147)

I still think that Assange is a dangerous, mentally ill douchebag

The guy risks his life and freedom to bring information to us, the people. If what it takes to do that is a "dangerous, mentally ill douchebag" maybe the world needs more dangerous, mentally ill douchebags*.

* although I agree he poses a danger to abusive governments and corporations around the world, what mental gymnastics did you do to conclude he is mentally ill (or are you his doctor?)? I think calling Assange a douchebag must be the cool thing to do because whenever Wikileaks pops up (even if tangentially) there are always some idiots who can't stop telling everyone how this Assange guy they have never met is such huge douche.

Lobbying and campaign funding (1)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814601)

Why the MAFIAA's dealings with the US Government isn't considered corruption is utterly beyond me.

It isn't 'corrupt' in the eyes of the law, but to ordinary people, it certainly smacks of corruption.

We can't expect it to be criminalised any time soon either, because the legislators who would be responsible for this have a massive conflict of interest.

It's worse than that (4, Interesting)

tick-tock-atona (1145909) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814617)

According to documents released under Freedom of Information [pirateparty.org.au] , the Attorney-General wants a "solution" to "be educative and aim to change the social norms."

That's right. They want to force "education" onto the population to make them want to prop up the content industry's failing business models.

Of course, only industry groups were invited to this meeting [delimiter.com.au] . I have to say, Ludlam is the reason that I voted greens in the last election.

This is good in one way (2)

powerspike (729889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814829)

A precedent set in Australia would be influential in countries with comparable legal systems such as Canada, India, New Zealand and Great Britain. Australian telecommunications giant Telstra was judged too large for the purposes of the attack. Owing to its smaller size and more limited resources, iiNet was gauged the perfect candidate.

So pretty much, iinet walked away a winner from the trial, so the this Precedent for all other nations going to do be a good thing. iinet was passing the "infrigement notices" onto the police, which from my understand decided not to do anything about them (not enough evidance). This was taken as enough action on the part of iiNet and now the content studios are appealing the decision, which is still going. But from the results of the first trial, it looks like they aren't going to be able to "save face" at all. Sometimes, they can stuff themselves up, and this is one of them.

Yep..... (4, Interesting)

NetNed (955141) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814845)

Then you have Pres. Obama throwing in to tonight's State of The Union that "It’s not right when another country lets "OUR" movies, music, and software be pirated".

All fits the bill of our politicians being lap dogs for media makers and that things like SOPA and PIPA need to be continued to be rallied against because they are trying still going to try and push them through.

Big surprise... (1)

larys (2559815) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815065)

As one of my former teachers said: "politics...poly-ticks: poly: more than one, ticks: blood-sucking creatures." For a statement that seems so immediately incorrect in terms of the underlying meaning of the term 'politics,' it's somehow remarkably true... Really, who didn't see this coming...?

Well damn huh? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815095)

They sure want to go after those pirates. But their actions sure want to make me into a pirate. Guess that reverse psychology stuff does work...

Nice ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815149)

They own our country and there's not a dam thing we can do about it...now I'm thanking all of the useless fanbois who when I post on GT5 and mention what Sony did with root kits I was told to stfu that Sony was doing it to keep theft costs down.. Wtf? They deserve it..

iiNet is our second biggest ISP! (1)

TimmyRt (1354547) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815237)

Owing to its smaller size and more limited resources, iiNet was gauged the perfect candidate.

According to Wikipedia iiNet is out second largest ISP these days, and are doing pretty well considering they just bought Internode for $105 [on.net] . They've been fighting for the user [wikipedia.org] for a while now, and recently did just win against AFACT [afact.org.au] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?