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!

cancel ×

128 comments

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

No need for new laws (2, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899349)

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.

Re:No need for new laws (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899507)

That's what I told my Congressman.

Re:No need for new laws (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899669)

Speck had purchased a USB stick branded âApple iPad6 TVâ(TM) from the premises for $99, which alongside a $50 per month subscription fee purported to offer over 1100 pirate TV channels (including MTV, Discovery Channel, ESPN, CNN, HBO, Fox and the BBC), over 1000 first-release movies on-demand (including Hugo, Tin Tin and Mr Poppers Penguins), over 600 adult films and downloads of popular television programs including âThe Family Guy and âBig Bang Theoryâ(TM).

A forensic analysis of the USB stick found it offered "proxied and peer to peer access to restricted sites" hosted within China and the United States, which host several pay TV stations as well as streaming videos and other copyright materials.

Why deal with those assholes in the first place?

Re:No need for new laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900303)

It's them or Murdoch's Foxtel cable monopoly.

Re:No need for new laws (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38901127)

Funnier yet, they still have to pay $50 plus whatever their service provider wants for streaming over a stupid damn phone anyway.
If it were a car you'd pay to unlock the steering wheel, pay a monthly fee for seat rental, then pay a toll every two blocks.
I'll stick with my not-so-smartphone and watch tv/movies on a viewable screen with a real sound system.
Lol, pirates paying additional fees for stolen tv content ROFLMAO....

Re:No need for new laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900541)

just pay lawyers to sue and tell police to find pirates and the problem is solved.

Yeah, but it's much cheaper for them to let the DoJ/FBI/ICE do it for them for free.

Re:No need for new laws (1)

captain_sweatpants (1997280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38901151)

Actually this article is far less interesting than this [technology...tor.com.au] one. A copyright ruling in the Federal court makes it essentially impossible for sporting organisations to charge for internet broadcast rights to any content which also streams on free-to-air tv. Which may or may not be good thing...

HANG HIM BY THE NECK UNTIL HE IS DEAD !! DEAD !! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899393)

Dead !! Because the only good pirate is a dead pirate !!

Dream gadget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899397)

Porn surfer's dream gadget?

Re:Dream gadget (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899545)

Its only several hundred adult films, not several thousand.

Re:Dream gadget (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900123)

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???

Re:Dream gadget (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38901131)

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.

Re:Dream gadget (2)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900265)

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.

Damn police, screwing the free market. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899409)

This kind of government regulation is killing innovation and that's just wrong! It's a complete travesty of justice! Ron Paul 4EVER! Gold UBER ALLES!

Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (0)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899427)

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.
 

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (3, Informative)

lazycam (1007621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899467)

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 [wikipedia.org] . 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.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899495)

someone who copies a movie in the us is charged with theft and not copyright infringement?

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899517)

Not yet.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (3, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900247)

We should be so lucky.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899505)

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.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (1)

bunbuntheminilop (935594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900197)

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?

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900471)

That's fraud.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900487)

Nobody's stolen anything... You offer a sight-seeing tour of your town for $60, another guy offers the same service for $30. Other guy hasn't stolen anything from you, nor have the customers.

You people need to get it through your thick-headed skulls, you can't compare movies, songs, software, etc. to anything else in the world. Nothing else can be duplicated and distributed as easily, and if someone uses a pirated copy of a movie, song, software, they haven't stolen anything, at worst the original producer has lost out on potential revenue, and even that's debatable.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900719)

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.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38901339)

Well it's a little different. It's not like they make remakes of the movies in China, and that would be a more accurate comparison.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900645)

The service here is provided from Chinese servers. Are you claiming that he ripped off the Chinese company providing the service?

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (5, Informative)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899599)

Australia is not in the UK. We have our own laws seperate from the empire.

Although according to this article [news.com.au] they have identified 100 customers and will be pursuing them for recieving stolen goods. I dont know how that'll go in court though.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (2)

lazycam (1007621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899651)

Australia is not in the UK.

I appologize. I blame my US education for my ignorance [cnn.com] of [msn.com] geography [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (1)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900087)

i wouldnt trust that last link. apparently the author doesnt know the difference between a country and a continent.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900869)

From your third link:

11% of Americans could not find America

*removes sunglasses* Mother of god...

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (1)

HornyBastard (666805) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899981)

Australia is not in the UK.

If you put the queen of england on your money, you're british!

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (5, Informative)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900023)

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900075)

Excuse me... she's neither the Queen of England nor the Queen of Australia. She is Queen Elizabeth II the constitutional monarch, or Head of State, of the Commonwealth of Nations which includes: United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (4, Informative)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900317)

Who modded this informative? She is most definitely the Queen of Australia (and Head of State): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia [wikipedia.org] (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.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900407)

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.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900637)

"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.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (2)

neonsignal (890658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900867)

That's what worries me. When Britain becomes a republic, does that mean Her Royal Highness will move here to Australia for good? ;)

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | more than 2 years ago | (#38901267)

There was an interesting discussion recently about the order of succession. Apparently the Poms are planning to change the order of succession so the the crown will descend to the first born child regardless of gender.

If they do that, and Australia doesn't, in the future the Queen of England and the King of Australia will obviously be different people.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (2)

PieceOfShitAndroid (2538056) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900941)

Then why is her birthday different everywhere you go?

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899601)

I'm not sure what the UK has to do with this as it's an article on an Australian State Police investigation.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900453)

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.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900871)

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.

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38901023)

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".

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (1)

Poltron Inconnu (985067) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900883)

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.

Don't hold your breath. (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899745)

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).

Re:Ignorance like this needs to be corrected (4, Informative)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899761)

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.

What? (2, Interesting)

Vrtigo1 (1303147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899433)

How is content hosted in china but streamed via US servers? That statement doesn't make much sense.

Re:What? (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899461)

Especially since TFA clearly states:

it offered “proxied and peer to peer access to restricted sites” hosted within China and the United States

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900447)

How is content hosted in china but streamed via US servers? That statement doesn't make much sense.

Well, if it is torrents, then I imagine you could pick any country with half-way decent internet access and say that it is streamed via servers from there. As long as anyone in the peer to peer network is in that country, then you would be correct.

Re:What? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900815)

How is content hosted in china but streamed via US servers? That statement doesn't make much sense.

It doesn't make much sense to me either, especially when the original article clearly says "hosted within China and the United States"

Speck told iTnews he offered the opportunity for Apple Australia to also pursue the retailer to protect its trademarks, but to his disappointment the company declined.

Yes, it sounds more like Apple probably didn't want to hire him. Whether Apple Australia pursues this case, or not, it's not any of his business anyway. The last thing Apple needs is to hire (or even endorse) a self-designated "copyright specialist" (whatever the hell that title means). The last thing any Corporation needs is an unknown self-designated over-eager PI. Private Investigators break laws. Private Investigators break into voice mail accounts. And sometimes Private Investigators (or self-designated vigilantes) try to commit even more serious crimes in order to impress a new potential employer.

When I worked for a huge corporation, anytime something happened to our company, we had every unemployed quack pot coming out of the woodwork offering to "help" us out in some way. And of course, we rejected all those offers and offered no information whatsoever about what our next step was going to be.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38901101)

I reckon it means either
a, the video data was stored in China and
b. the DNS hosting services and/or the landing and navigation pages (ie the non copyright stuff) was hosted on US servers

Pirate TV, not Apple TV (4, Informative)

webdog314 (960286) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899445)

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?

Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV (2)

infurnus (1897136) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899543)

In the article, you can see they used the Apple logo in their GUI as well, and had "iPad TV" written next to the apple logo on the USB drives.
There was also a "Made in Taiwan" text next to that.

Technically, even if these USB drives/keys weren't counterfeit, they still committed trademark infringement.

Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV (1)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899617)

Nope. It seems apple wanted nothing to do with it either.

From TFA:

Speck told iTnews he offered the opportunity for Apple Australia to also pursue the retailer to protect its trademarks, but to his disappointment the company declined.

Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899869)

you mean they've given up on that trademark?

sweet!

Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900779)

I don't think it works that way.

You only lose the trademark if you don't prevent it from genericization (eg kleenex tissues, bandaid bandage, photoshop photo cleanup, etc) even then, it could simply be Apple not wanting to waste time on something that will only waste their legal money.

Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899793)

Just because the guy choses a USB stick with an Apple logo on it (that's not even made by Apple) doesn't mean it has *anything* to do with Apple or Apple TV. Was he somehow spoofing iTunes accounts?

Actually, it's selling fraudulent goods.

The USB sticks were being sold _as_ Apple products when they were not. Just because the purchaser was dumb enough to buy them (first dumb enough to buy Apple, then dumb enough to buy fake Apple products) does not excuse it.

Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV (2)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900081)

It's weird they called them counterfeit Apple products, twice, when Apple doesn't make anything like it.

Re:Pirate TV, not Apple TV (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900737)

Pretty dumb to call them "counterfeit devices bearing the Apple trademark". They were simply USB thumbdrives. There was no "counterfeiting" (except the logo itself). It was simply a way to deliver a piece of software that accessed the servers. Maybe it acted as a dongle.

Obviously aimed at people who don't have a clue how to use a computer to download or stream content themselves; otherwise who would pay for this?

The police must love this method because they have a physical "device" to bag and tag and present in court.

In this week's episode... (4, Funny)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899447)

...of Michael Speck, Undercover International Entertainment Network Copyright Specialist, ...

Aw hell, it's late. Somebody take the ball and run with it.

Re:In this week's episode... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899469)

we travel to the far reaches of papua new guinea where they don't have electricity and sue an entire tribe. the tribe settles the dispute by eating the lawyers.

So the question is flavor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899603)

Did the lawyers taste like ink, cotton, or babies?

>>the tribe settles the dispute by eating the lawyers.

Re:In this week's episode... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900167)

...of Michael Speck, Undercover International Entertainment Network Copyright Specialist, ...

Aw hell, it's late. Somebody take the ball and run with it.

If James Bond had been first dreamed up in 2012, that's what he'd be.

Blofeld would be a serial downloader, or maybe mastermind of the Pirate Party. His cat's name would be a copyright violation.

Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. (5, Funny)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899491)

Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. Where can I get one of these?

Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. (3, Insightful)

yamum (893083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899821)

I actually had a demo one of these type things and tcpdump'd the traffic. Found it used sopcast [sopcast.org] so easily made a version of the dongle in perl. All Korean content but streamed from China.

Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899875)

It is too bad that you are modded funny.

Why is it that the only way to get access to this kind of content is through illegal means ? How did this society go so wrong that a product that is technicably feasible since a decade, highly desirable with millions of potential clients, was made impossible to create ?

Shouldn't lawmakers adress this problem ? The ACTA lobbyists tried to find ways to preserve revenue streams that seem frankly unsustainable in today's technology environment but did not wonder how they could make international agreements to make new revenues possible.

Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. (1)

wanzeo (1800058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900461)

So they were $99 dollars upfront for a USB key containing keys to access a website serving up copyright infringing media for an additional recurring $50 a month. If I remember correctly, AUD ~ USD.

Even if you don't account for the problems of giving CC info to a shady site (say you use prepaid cards), that is still a lot of money to pay for access to copyrighted media. Isn't the whole point to not spend money? Who was their target market?

Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. (3, Interesting)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900857)

The fact that people are willing to pay this much should be a lesson to the copyright holders and content providers. The message is "we will pay for this service but until it becomes available we have to buy from criminals".

The problem with creating a legal service to step into the shoes of this illegal service is the competition between the companies that are involved. Can you imagine the complexity of a deal involving all of the companies in the article? I would imagine that Apple would gladly provide the hardware but it would also want the lion's share of the revenue even though the content would be provided by others.

Re:Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38901043)

Try http://dl.pps.tv/ [dl.pps.tv]

Probably pretty much the same content, but this is free. Supposedly legal, but I wouldn't depend on that.

Was it unlicensed or improperly licensed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899503)

What happens when they find out that the stuff was all licensed but at rates for mainland China? Cultural discrimination in Australia more a crime than copyright licenses issues.

Re:Was it unlicensed or improperly licensed? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899893)

then the OFLC^W^W^W^WCOB^W^W^W Classification Board will eat them for breakfast.

Forensics needed (1)

RubberDogBone (851604) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899515)

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!

Next Target: The Consumers (1)

VJmes (2449518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899561)

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.

Re:Next Target: The Consumers (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899621)

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

I really want to see how that bullshit plays out in court.

Probably exactly as the police expect. You may have notices that the Australian Courts are even more on the
side of big media than the US courts.

Re:Next Target: The Consumers (2)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899815)

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

I really want to see how that bullshit plays out in court.

Probably exactly as the police expect. You may have notices that the Australian Courts are even more on the
side of big media than the US courts.

You dont live in Australia do you.

Australian courts tend to side against big media. Feel free to look up AFACT vs iinet. [wikipedia.org]

Now the NSW Police haven't said they will do anything against the customers, the law views them as victims of fraud. In order for them to be receivers of stolen goods they must have had prior knowledge the goods were stolen.

Re:Next Target: The Consumers (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899903)

citation needed.

Re:Next Target: The Consumers (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899747)

Exactly. If they are paying for a monthly service (same price as Sat TV/month) + internet access, then how can they be guilty?
The trouble is that all the good criminal lawyers in Oz are vacationing somewhere sunny and warm.
Those Chinese users are heading for the slammer + fines + court costs.

Re:Next Target: The Consumers (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899755)

Isn't it sunny and warm in oz right now?

Re:Next Target: The Consumers (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899911)

yeah, but the aircon is on the fritz again and we're freezing our tits off.

Re:Next Target: The Consumers (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900181)

yeah, but the aircon is on the fritz again and we're freezing our tits off.

On this side of the planet, we freeze our asses off.

Re:Next Target: The Consumers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899963)

Isn't it sunny and warm in oz right now?

More wet than sunny, so I guess you could say its currently ,em>warm and moist downunder...

I will be interested to see how the Australian courts deal with this case.

What does it have to do with piracy? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899589)

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.

most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are OTA (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899607)

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.

Re:most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899773)

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>

Re:most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900189)

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.

Re:most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are (1)

rednip (186217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900965)

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.

companies that manufacture in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899677)

Such as IBM, Apple, GE, Dell, etc. deserve what is coming to them.

Re:companies that manufacture in China (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900193)

Such as IBM, Apple, GE, Dell, etc. deserve what is coming to them.

Big piles of money?

$100 (1)

SwampChicken (1383905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899719)

And then another $50 a month??? How much more does the legit service cost?

Re:$100 (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899927)

How much more does the legit service cost?

Example [foxtel.com.au]

Re:$100 (5, Insightful)

grahamsaa (1287732) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899999)

This is an excellent example of why piracy is alive and well today. I occasionally get a call from my cable (internet) provider asking me if I'm interested in taking advantage of a special 'deal' to get cable TV access for around $65/month (for a limited time, of course). Each time I respond by saying "so, you've removed all the advertisements, then?"

The person on the other end of the phone usually sounds confused until I explain that I will happily pay for content, but not so long as they try to treat me as the customer and the product at the same time. I _might_ pay $10/month for a full cable package with ads, and $50/month might be reasonable for 100% ad-free content, but anything like what the standard providers are charging for ad supported content is completely unthinkable. Until then, services like Hulu are a much better deal.

And if content providers are too stupid to put their content up on those sites, I have no qualms pirating it. If I can't find a way to watch content cheaply or for free, I don't bother with that content at all. Big content -- adapt or die!

Terrible headline (4, Insightful)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899789)

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!

Re:Terrible headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38901141)

I got at the bottom of slashdot a quite appropriate quote: "A is for Apple. -- Hester Pryne"

Piracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38899909)

Interesting given that Optus have just won a case that says they are allow to stream AFL etc. to their customers mobiles without the permission of the content provider... (Though in that case it's Free TV - maybe that's the difference).

"A forensic analysis" (2)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 2 years ago | (#38899979)

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.

Re:"A forensic analysis" (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38900775)

forensic - a. Portmanteau of Foreign and Sick.
"Get your damned forensic copyright legislation out of our country!"

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38900705)

Someone carried around his bookmarks on a USB stick which he pimped with a Apple logo.

Forensics is still trying to find out if the Apple logo is some kind of sticker with glue on one side... or if it had been drawn on.. with a pen...

i wan one!! (1)

ticktickboom (1054594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38901239)

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>