Kazaa Offices Raided 787
rj writes "ZDNet Australia is reporting the Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) this morning raided the offices of Kazaa owners, Sharman Networks, along with P2P company Brilliant Digital Entertainment, and the homes of key executives. Background on prosecution of copyright music in Australia over P2P is also available."
Raided them for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Raided them for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Legal? (Score:3)
alleys were not built for drug dealing. kazaa was built for media piracy, no matter what anyone else may claim. simple as that.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Funny)
I just had a mental image of a mobile Alexander Calder would never have had publicly shown.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me ask you something. If 98% of alleys were filled with drug, what would be your response? what if its still down to 50 or 40% ? Who set this limit ? Any technology is abused with varying degree. Even google is misused heavily. That doesn't mean that google should be shutdown. Any technology, if it has a legitimate use, should be allowed. The danger is that if Kazaa is shutdown because 99% of people use it for copyright infringment, tomorrow same logic would be applied for something with 90% copyright infringment and next day with something even lesser. So where will this end ? Last, this 99% crap itself is wrong. As far as I understand a substantial chunk of p2p network is used for porn sharing. So I dont think its anything even closer to 90%.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, so all porn is completely public domain, and not at all copyrighted?
You can't seriously believe that.
Re:Legal? (Score:4, Funny)
Actually (Score:4, Informative)
Goodie, goodie, goodie! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press;...'
I argue that the freedom of the press includes the right of any citizen, or group of citizens to own a press. At the time that the US Constitution was written the only means (i.e. technology) for communicating with a truly mass audience was the printing press.
Historically, only the Crown had the *right* to own a press. The Crown might *permit* others to operate a press subject to prior restraint, but the Crown controlled the uses of all presses.
In order to have freedom of the press individuals, or groups of individuals must necessarily be able to own, and/or have access to the technology that physically, and infrastructurely allows he/she/them to communicate with a mass audience.
Thus, it must logically follow that the freedom of the press must include the right to own the means of communicating with a mass audience.
New technology that provides the ability to communicate with a mass audience has historically, over time, been encompassed by the notion of the freedom of the press with regard to ownership.
The music industry in trying to advance its copyright claims via the elimination of various channels through which copyrighted materials flow illegally. This runs afoul of the freedom of the press.' That is the notion that a technology which allows for the communication between a person, and a mass audience is covered by the freedom of the press. Ultimately, copyright claims must be superseded by the right of the individual to have at their disposal the means of communicating with a mass audience, i.e. 'freedom of the press.'
Re:Goodie, goodie, goodie! (Score:5, Funny)
However, why the big quote from the U.S. Constitution? This happened in Australia.
Can't you quote someting Australian? :-)
Re:Legal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I wouldn't approve, simply because it was a bad idea to outlaw drugs in the first place. Oulawing drugs created a whole new slew of secondary crimes and enough incentives for organized crime to move in.
--
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of making it useless for drug pushers to operate? Or making pushing legal? Seems to me it would be alot easier than outlawing alleys and forcing everybody that lives in the city to move to a country house.
The same applies to P2P. Wouldn't it make more sense to redraft copyright law instead of trying to force people to submit to idiotic markets and ban technology?
No? Well, tough shit, people are going to continue to live in cities and people are going to continue to steal content as long as it costs way too much.
The music and movie industry has had 50 golden years to put away some money for a rainy day. If they were stupid enough to think that movie theaters, radio stations and music discs were an eternal cash-cow while using their profits to build castles in the sand, well... give them a Darwin Award.
Don't make the rest of the population pay for bad economics and planning.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
- Heinlein's Lifeline
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's not even stealing according to the law. You do, however, have a (populistic) point.
However, the real reason behind all the fuss is the big money. If media-companies had not invested loads of money in these more and more obsolete delivery mechanisms, there would not be a problem. The question isn't if media publsihers going to get paid per se, but rather if the current media publishers are going to get paid according to outdated business practices.
All in all: if you don't have a product that people want to buy, either your product sucks or it's too expensive. Tough titty.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it would be relying on an inefficient distribution monopoly for profits.
The only reason the entertainment industry is having trouble right now is because their product is easy to steal!
Wrong again. The reason they are in trouble is that they are producing a product, the distribution of music, that is obsolete (well soon anyway) thanks to new technology.
And don't be so unwise as to call illegal copying "stealing" as you might then easily miss the fact that illegal copying is hugely productive, which in turn means that you will probably miss a sane solution to the whole issue.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason the entertainment industry is having trouble right now is because their product is easy to steal! If it wasn't, they would be in the green right now.
Got facts? Because I have the perennial "music sales went up while Napster was around and dropped off when it died". "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", but it's more "evidence" than you posted.
On top of that, wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that the simplest explanation to this problem is that people don't want to buy the music? Why would the remedy to that automatically be assumed to be anything other than the product itself for this particular industry, when common sense and prior knowledge tells us that the most common reason for people not purchasing a product is an inability to percieve a value in that purchase? Or, to put it more bluntly: the most likely reason people aren't buying this or any other product is that they don't think it's worth it.
Now, if you have some evidence that suggests something other than the common wisdom, I'm all ears. I'm not too proud to learn something new.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Your argument falls somewhat short. The only reason that the entertainment industry exists in the first place is that it was expensive to start copying, but once you got it running, you could put out many copies very cheap.
So when stuff like the printing press was invented and used, suddenly the burdensome path of copying books, music and other creative works by hand was obsolete. Once you had the work in your printing press, you could generate hundreds of copies. But the investition in the actual press, in generating the plates for printing and proofreading were expensive, so many artist couldn't afford that themselves. So they couldn't get their own work out to earn money, because they couldn't afford the initial costs necessary to start copying, thus forcing them to get other people to invest into them.
Without legal protection of their work they didn't even had a chance to sell their work to the printing press operator, because all he needed was a single copy to create the printing plates. This put the artist out of the revenue stream for his own work. Many countries had regulations in place to stop this, mostly by forcing the artist to register his work with a royal office of Arts or something similar, and this office then protected the artist from illicit copies, but on the other hand the royal office now could censor the work by not allowing anyone to copy it or not accepting the work in the first place.
Copyright (or Author's right according to the Berne Convention) was deviced to give the control of the work back to the author, who was still forced to sell rights to his work to printing press operators (because buying a printing press was still expensive). It took some time until Copyright was available to non-citizens. Charles Dickens for instance was never able to stop U.S. printers to sell his books, because U.S. Copyright law at this time was only protecting U.S. citizens. It wasn't until american authors themselves were trying to sell their works outside of U.S. (namely Samuel Langhorne Clemens a.k.a. Mark Twain) until the U.S. agreed to protect non-citizen works in reverse for protection of U.S. works outside the U.S.
The same situation came up with all developing countries which weren't very keen at protecting copyright from other countries until they had enough own works to protect abroad which made it worthwile to give protection to outlanders in exchange (think Japan in the early 20th century, Taiwan in the 70ies). This makes one wonder if it makes sense at all to force third world countries to enforce copyright at all. No one playing catchup in the last 150 years was protecting copyright until he reached a certain level himself
Back to the music industry. It has only one big selling point for artists: It can help to overcome the initial costs to spread the work and thus guaranteering a revenue stream back to the artist. There is no other actual unique service the music industry is providing to the artist. All other services could also be provided by a personal agent which gets a share of the revenue or a fixed salary or whatever.
The music industry is also a service provider to the music listener: In an ideal world it helps the music listener to find music according to his taste and his purchasing power, preselect, finetune and in other ways improve the listening experience. Basicly it is acting as an agent between artist and listener.
But both of those roles are loosing its importance to the music world. Copying costs near to nothing to nearly everyone, so the initial costs for an artist to spread the work is approaching zero. This makes the big selling point of music industry services to the artist void. All it has left is the additional services (connections, career counselling...), which could be bo
Re:Legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
More than 1%? You bet! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there is also a substantial portion which is used for, among other things, advertisements, legal restores (example: a long time ago, I used a file sharing network to backup an mp3 which I legally owned... the original had been corrupted during a backup to a bad CD; I lost a lot of data, but most of it didn't turn out to be important, luckily), and semi-legal file transfers (where the host might be in, say, Japan where the file is illegal, but the downloader is in the US where there is no copyright and is therefore legal).
With all due respect, sir, I think you're focusing on the negative side of file sharing.
~UP
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The motor car is used in huge numbers of crime getaways yet nobody sued Ford or suggests Ford fits cars with cameras that look for money bags and refuse to start the engine otherwise.
Similarly the music industry should be looking for people who are actually breaking the law not harassing those providing tools with legitimate other uses.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Music can be legitamately shared. That more than anything is what the MIPI and RIIA and other goons are trying quietly to suppress. The "one percent" as you call it of legitimate use. People like Brian Eno and Peter Gabriel who are releasing (and helping other artists to release) music on their own terms, thus shutting out the recording industry. If this were to continue, in five years that could be 20-25%. So, if the RIIA and others shout PIRATE loud enough in the right ears, no one will ever notice those people and before long they will be legislated (coerced) into either A. Recording music with the industry or B. Not recording music. These people are thugs and are using heavy handed monopolistic practices as well as sly legal trickery to perpetuate their empires. Sorry you can't see that.
Re:Legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your point that if 99% of all activity in alleys were illegal, we should close the alleys.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Kazaa (or at least Kazaa Lite) removed the ability to see what files an individual user had shared primarily to make it more difficult to quantify how much of a violator someone was...
It's about time (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory reference (Score:3, Funny)
-All your offices are belong to us*
*with Aussie strong accent, plz.
Regards,
jdif
Re:Obligatory reference (Score:5, Funny)
a> G'day blue, wha's th' goss?
b> All ya baches, barbies and crocs are belong to us, mate.
a> S'truth?
b> S'truth. It's bonza, mate. You have no chance to survive, make yer time.
a> Crickey dick!
Re:Obligatory reference (Score:5, Funny)
This is a subpoena!
Re:Obligatory reference (Score:5, Funny)
*Baaaaaaaa!*
So long as we're getting into mindless stereotypes here.
Re:Obligatory reference (Score:5, Funny)
All you OFFICE(TM) are belong to us.
Filthy abusers of IP like you sicken me. How could you not recognize that that word belongs to MS.
Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
The BSA has ZERO (extenuating/special) legal force behind them.
And YES I am specifically talking about in the US.
They basically are a business offering to audit you. They fact that they're making their offers with intentionally intimidating letters written in the best of legalspeak is neither here nor there.
They have ZERO legal rights for search-and-seizure or any such like (until, of course, they can prove to a judge "probable cause" or other similar evidence just like anyone else who wants to request a search warrant).
These anti-music/movie-piracy moguls , on the other hand, have had several particularly nasty laws passed which give them FULL LEGAL SANCTION to act more like a police force than any other business in the pursuit of evidence and/or prosecution.
So basically no, the BSA is *not* operating in a similar way. The BSA just TALK BIG and hope to scare you. The *AAs of the US are businesses with powers significantly similar to The Police Force.
Re:Uh (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's a civil matter brought by private individuals (or, in this case, corporations) which means that the State and its agencies really have no business interfering or being dragged in. Think of it as the civil equivalent of a search warrant: in a criminal matter the State can do the search because the State is a party to the case.
It's not exactly ideal, the Anton Piller order and its cousin the Mareva injunction are sometimes referred to as the tactical nukes of the law, but there isn't another viable
erm, ok. (Score:4, Interesting)
What kind of freedoms do these goons get, anyway, when they raid? Do they take everything, bash down doors, and the like, as the article implies (and as would likely occur under the Patriot Act)?
If this kind of thing is valid, I don't see where so many
Re:erm, ok. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the hypocrisy in that??
If your own country act like this, can't you comment about other countries where police can do the same?
No Biggie (Score:5, Funny)
Besides, with a name like MIPI, could you really stay mad at them for that long?
third of nine (Score:5, Informative)
Third of Nine
Nazis (Score:5, Funny)
Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, stopping Kazaa will end music piracy in Australia. Because nobody has ever heard of
None of which look like they're going away.
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Informative)
- BitTorrent [bitconjurer.org]
- Shareaza (gnutella2) [shareaza.com]
- eDonkey2000 [edonkey2000.com]
- FTP [wikipedia.org] - with IPs traded amongst friends/etc. (a crude P2P, in a sense)
- as well as a slew of others I'm not aware of, I'm sure.
All this knowledge simply from being online for a couple years. Imagine what a hardcore file trader is aware of.
Re:Not likely (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Informative)
You are correct, but your conclusion is not (and it's not your fault, either -- it's good ol' politics and business obscuring good clean engineering).
Kazaa operates in a fairly decentralized manner. At one point, the FastTrack network (what Kazaa uses internally) was open. However, the protocol was reverse engineered (by the GiFT project members and others), and third party clients started popping up. The FastTrack folks sold licenses to use their network -- plus, the use of an open protocol was detrimental to the client vendors, like Kazaa, as it meant that users could choose a (nicer) spyware-free client. The protocol was modified to contain an authentication system that *is* centralized. If Kazaa (the company) won't authorize you, you can't use the network.
The addition of the authentication system was a huge step back from an engineering standpoint, but a huge jump forward from a business one -- it make Kazaa very lucrative.
Is this at all important? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anton Pillar order (Score:4, Informative)
-John
Re:Anton Pillar order (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only is the notion morally bankrupt, but it can bankrupt the innocent people while trying to prove innocense.
But here's a question: I have read somewhere that in europe they have consequences for being wrong in filing a lawsuit. In other words, if you sue someone and it turns out you're wrong, you may have to pay the defendant damages in addition to paying their legal costs. I forget what this is called but it's one hell of a nice det
Re:Anton Pillar order (Score:4, Informative)
If someone brings a frivolous action then they're likely to have costs awarded against them on an indemnity basis (as opposed to costs on a standard basis if they just lost without having been shown to have acted frivolously). Furthermore, a lawyer who assists in bringing a case s/he knows is baseless and is done for some ulterior purpose is likely to be forced to indemnify the client for costs, and may face disciplinary proceedings.
Both the crime and tort of barratry have, however, been abolished in most Australian jurisdictions.
Re:Anton Pillar order (Score:3, Informative)
-John
Yet more bogus damages calculations (Score:5, Funny)
As of now, my understanding is that Apple sells tracks for $US0.99, and is in pretty close to a breakeven state for iTunes (this may have changed recently, as surely the sheer volume going through iTunes would cause them to move into profit at some point). Regardless, it seems that $US0.99 is pretty close to the breakeven point, and you'd assume the breakeven cost in Australia would be no lower than that given the population is so small - let's cut the record companies some slack and assume $US0.90 is the breakeven point for online music sales in Australia.
$A0.99 translates to $US0.76. Now, since it costs $US0.90 to provide a downloadable music track, Kazaa is actually *saving* the record companies $US0.14 per downloaded track. By my calculation, the 850,000 tracks downloaded via Kazaa haved saved Australian record companies $US119,000 in providing that service.
What's that? Bogus use of statistics, you say?...
Raided?! (Score:5, Insightful)
5, Funny? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this moded +5 Funny, because we all have given in and realised that this is the future?
I mean, it's not funny! It's not even unlikely with the development we see worldwide these days (weak goverments, mighty corporations).
I'd give this post +5, Apocalyptical yet realistic, but for some odd reason that moderation doesn't exist... Oh. And now I can't moderate.
I doubt that MIPI finds anything.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This just seems like the MIPI along with the rest of the record industry is trying to harass Sherman Networks into going away. Personally I don't like/use KaZaa or any other P2P utility, but I think it's a necessary evil.
Oh well, if they should manage to close down KaZaa, there's plenty of underground alternatives for the (ab)users. Seems like wasted resources from a desperate industry.
It's just like the commercials. (Score:5, Funny)
Voice in aussie accent: Search engine!
(shot of Fosters can)
Voice in aussie accent: Beer!
Dammit! (Score:3, Funny)
What this is about (Score:5, Interesting)
2) They want to see if KAZAA/Sharman are keeping track of who the heavy users are. Thus KAZAA would know about illegal file trading, and be partly liable for copyright infringement.
3) KAZAA/Sharman networks profit by looking the other way. However, if they are actively working to enhance "reliable sources" for file trading, that would look pretty bad.
4) Any inter-office memos/emails relating to the above.
It will be interesting to see exactly how private user's data really is. You would think that Sharman would (or should have) anticipated such a move by the recording industry.
just my
Much scarrier than Patriot Act... (Score:5, Interesting)
This situation in Australia seems not too dissimilar to SCO busting into Linus' house with presumeably armed gov. officials and confiscating everything.
It's corporate terrorism.
Not the first time and it's getting worse (Score:5, Informative)
This has happened before in the USA and other countries, too. For example Cult of Scientology used to be famous for its raids to the critics' homes (Zenon's case [google.com],other cases [google.com]
The situation is also getting worse in Europe, because the upcoming IPR enforcement directive will greatly strenghen Anton Pillar orders in all member states (unless we will manage to mount enough public pressure to stop the process, which is unlikely but not totally impossible - contact your MEPS today!)
V.
MY office is in no danger of being raided.... (Score:3, Funny)
Wait...
Why this is a "good" trend... (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA/MIPI/"Recording Industry" has been conducting police raids in the United States out on the streets, handing out false tickets on false pretenses, etc... This began occuring over a month ago. Since then, they have lost key decisions in the courts, both in US and Europe, and things are looking bad for them. Now, they are beginning to conduct actual raids on property under obscure laws outside of the United States - obviously an intimidation tatic for those of us in the United States.
Now... why is this good you ask?
Because the day will come when an RIAA representative will knock at my university door and demand to see recipets for all my jazz mp3's (legally and educationaly obtained) I have laying around my harddrives. When this happens, hello Supreme Court.
This series of events is giving us a very clear picture: The RIAA is a dying animal who is now lashing out in any means necessary. Non governmental agencies playing cops - be it here or austrilla - is a fundemental violation of human liberty - which is a value upheld by the UN and the World Court (which Austrilla is a member of). Not that this really matters since no one is going to do anything about it, at least right now.
Later on, we are going to see events like these help us in a completely different court though - the court of public opinion. Isn't it easy to see a Dateline episode being made of this event? Isn't it easy to connect the dots and see that the RIAA and their chums are just doing this so the average American thinks that their home could be raided by Will Smith and his men in black protecting his copyright? Isn't it easy to see that the Average American would go apeshit if the RIAA actually tried to enter their house, and they later found out it was completely against the law?
Let's return to the orignal question. Why is this good?
Because the RIAA and every incarnation of it is pushing the very lines of human rights and freedoms that have been affirmed around the globe since the end of World War II.
I have never seen America stand down in the face of a constitutional violation, never. Hell, even some of my republican friends acknowledge Roe v. Wade. Let the RIAA come and try to impose this scare tatic here in the USA. I fore one can't wait for this good thing to happen. Two days after they try to enter a house in the US (legally or illegaly) Scallia and Rehinquist will join forces and strike the RIAA back to the seventh circle of hell from which it spawned.
Be happy with the RIAA's actions - it's a sign the end is near.
- The Ever Defiant Simrook
(p/s - All spelling errors are mine and mine alone.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Want to stop this Australia? (Score:5, Interesting)
www.neteffect.org.au
If you want to have a representative in parliament who actually understands how this type of behaviour is a bad thing, and do something about it, then I recommend you visit our site and read through what we have to offer.
It's time that we Aussies had a REAL "younger generation" to represent our views instead of a 42 year old "young-un"; someone who knows what a frag is, someone who cares about our online rights and someone who understands the pickle we're in regarding current copyright/patent laws.
Oh, and someone (me of course) who's a regular Slashdot poster....
At the very least have a look at our policies and forum - I think you'll find that we're very much aiming to be a real force for change in Australia.
Putting the pressure on... (Score:3, Interesting)
Once there, look up the nearest Australian consulate. Then, give them a call and tell them that you're furious that they would allow this kind of manipulation at the hands of the recording industry.
Be tactful, polite, but firm. Practice what you're going to say. Don't swear, and don't say anything rash or dangerous to your own freedom. (We need you out of jail, so you can join the GNU/United Front militias in the Great Copyright Civil War of 2016)
The RIAA/MPAA may have billions of dollars, and governments all over the world at their beck and call, but what we have is a whole lot stronger: We've got the Slashdot Effect.
They've got the guns, we've got the numbers.
Police did not conduct the search? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since when can someone search another person's property? Who is to say they did not take data or information not related directly to finding violations of law? At least if it was the police searching, you could have a court determine what is related to the specific law, and what is not. Who is to say they will not use items found unrelated to the copywrite issue, but which can still cause embarrasment, and use that information against them? It would be the equivelant of person B searching the house of person A for "copywrite violation" but finding tax records, photos of your lover, your address book of friends, etc...
Re:Police did not conduct the search? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a GOOD thing. Or is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Next week: Sharman networks search the offices and homes of the MIPI, any nearby U.S. diplomat, and their lawyers. They find copies of Kazaa light, a program that exploits Sharman's IP and network infrastructure illegaly.
W
First sentence of article (Score:3, Funny)
Holy run-on sentence, Batman! Jeez...
Anton Pillar orders explained. (Score:5, Informative)
In Anton Piller K.G. v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd., [1976] 1 All E.R. 779 at 782 Lord Denning stated:
"Let me say at once that no court in this land has any power to issue a search warrant to enter a man's house so as to see if there are papers or documents there which are of an incriminating nature, whether libels or infringements of copyright or anything else of the kind. No constable or bailiff can knock at the door and demand entry so as to inspect papers or documents. The householder can shut the door in his face and say, 'Get out.' That was established in the leading case of Entick v. Carrington (1765), 19 State Tr. 1029. None of us would wish to whittle down that principle in the slightest. But the order sought in this case is not a search warrant. It does not authorize the plaintiff's solicitors or anyone else to enter the defendants' premises against their will. Id does not authorize the breading down of any doors, nor the slipping in by a back door, nor getting in by an open door or window. It only authorizes entry and inspection by the permission of the defendants. The plaintiff's must get the defendants' permission. But it does do this: it brings pressure on the defendants to give permission. It does more. It actually orders them to give permission - with, I suppose, the result that if they do not give permission they are guilty of contempt of court."
As you can see, you can if you so chose deny access, but you had better have a pretty good reason.
Pay the Piper (Score:4, Funny)
and some studies have shown that file-sharing may actually contribute to greater expenditure by participants on legitimate music.
I wonder where these studies came from? Saying file-sharing encourages the purchase of legitimate music is like saying hookers encourage fidelity in marriage.:P
Re:Pay the Piper (Score:3, Insightful)
I've done this several time and it lead me to purchase the next albums by those artists.
Although i'll admit, when i was younger, this free music thing was awsome to me and i'd copy things left right and center. I even resorted to buying a CD once, copying
CANADA SUBSIDIZES IT'S ARTISTS... (Score:4, Insightful)
We already payed for that music already through our taxes and hidden fees.
Where does it end?
It's time we cut the free money flow to these thieves.
I wonder what information they took (Score:5, Interesting)
I know we give the Americans here on
Hasn't MIPI heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting Timing (Score:4, Interesting)
Its interesting that MIPI waited until just after the MGM v Grokster case [eff.org] to request and search.
Probably my tinfoil hat, but I wonder if a failure to find anything would have been detrimental to the Appeals Court case? The RIAA attorney tried to push the point that Grokster were complicit in "trafficking in pirated goods", which the judge duly scolded them for, as abusive.
The timing just seems a little funny?
this was Fortune Magazine Cover Story (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
What you gonna do when they come for you? (Score:5, Funny)
Trillionaires with Mafia support? (I mean Mafia backing, not people who threaten to make you sleep with the fishes unless you reboot your PC before ringing)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the people who make the billionares? If people would only stop buying music!
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say they find signed confessions by each of the execs, saying they formed the company for the express purpose of allowing other people to breach copyrights. These confessions do not, themselves, breach any copyright laws. They would in fact be copyrighted by the execs themselves. Could those confessions be seized and used in court, under the Anton Pilar law?
IANAL, but this seems like an abuse of an unrelated law to get law enforcement powers for free. I believe this was already tried [slashdot.org] by their US cousins.
--Bill
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that an Anton Pillar Order is a court order, so this is not just at the searcher's whim. However, prior to having one's premises searched, there is no opportunity for the searchee to lodge any sort of counter-claim, since their foreknowledge of the search is not required.
Even the Howard Bermans and Fritz Hollingses of the United States haven't proposed laws this off-kilter. One wonders whether this type of law would pass "Due Process" scrutinity here-- obviously law enforcement doesn't need to notify the subject of an investigation or raid in advance. That's well-established. But do we have any precedent saying that a private citizen, even holding court order has the right to perform such an act pro se? Any lawyers, paralegals, or armchair legislators care to comment?
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Funny)
{knock knock} {sound of door being bashed open} Hullo? I have an Anton Pillar order thingie and I'm here to sieze stuff...
{Blam, Blam, Blam}
Really? I have a variety of legal firearms all protected by the 2nd Ammendment and the right to protect my home and property. Now what was that about some sort of legal order?
Try this in the US. 'specially in the south... (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States of America have a long tradition of people's rights, human rights, democracy and personal freedom. If someone is undermining the very foundations of this country, if they try to finally corrupt the entire state starting with the legislative process through bought senators, bypassing the judicial branch through their own actions and even replacing the executive branch with their own mobsters, it is time for every citizen to react. Form militias, arm yourselves. This is exactly what the second amendmendment was created for: empowering the citizen to protect himself from unwarranted searches, abuse of governemntal powers and the failure of the offical system. Don't tolerate private companies violating private property! Don't tolerate companies who subvert the legal process! Don't tolerate the corruption of the land of the free!
And please remember the following sentences: "I don't agree with what you said, but I'd fight to my death for your right to say it!".
I don't endorse the breach of copyright or anything like that. Even if Sharman Networks did violate this law or another, I will not hesitate to fight with them or anyone else who is denied his constitutional rights and due process over a non-violent, non-capital and non-life threatening crime.
(Even if it sounds provocative or flamebait, it is not meant as such. I truly believe in the law and the constitution as the only rightful way to run a country. Posting logged-in to emphase this, even if the TIA and the rest of the three-letter agency scum will have a field day with their eternal databases. And yes, I reinstate: this comment is about about militant actions against the enemies of the constitution and yes I do make a call to arms against attempts to corrupt the last ones of our private rights.)
By the people - for the people. Nothing else!
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the article says that the "Anton pilar order" is there to enter a premises to seize material that infringes copyright.
I don't think the police will find any material that infringes copyright in the Australian office of Sharman. I looks more like a fishing expedition and, most likely, a way to annoy Sharman. Pityfull people...
But hey, Australia has said before they would copy US patent policy when the US would ask them to do so (US did, so Australia did what was aksed), as the US is the most important trade partner for Australia. The same might apply here.
Background info:
In Belgium and France, it's possible to enter premises as well to look for patent infringement, but the party who initiates the proceedings is *not* allowed to enter the premises! Only a bailiff and often an independent expert (patent attorney to neither party) and sometimes a police officer (called Saisie Contrefac,on). Could this be a deriverative of that?
Re:hah (Score:3, Insightful)
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
It is all about the money (Score:5, Funny)
Australia also has the best judicial system that money can buy.
.
Australian law allows police to search (Score:5, Informative)
Australian law allows a warrant to be issued providing that a Justice of the Peace has been convinced that there is reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is evidence of a crime on the premises.
I don't know how this compares with the US justice system and whether this was only granted by the patriot act (I doubt it). This has been the case for many years.
This is an invetigation of kazaa and it is reasonable that police be able to investigate suspected crimes wherever the evidence may be, otherwise criminals could conceal evidence in their homes and be totally immune to investigation.
Reaaaaaching for a joke..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:wait a second (Score:5, Funny)
In addition, hundreds of thousands of music files and terabytes worth of pirated DivX movies were confiscated on the RAID at the Sharman office. Kazaa is essentially shut down as there are no files available to be shared now that they're all in police custody. *rolls eyes*.
What's the point of raiding the offices of a software company who just makes the P2P client? They're not committing the crime!
Re:wait a second (Score:5, Funny)
fly off the handle much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fly off the handle much? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Freedom Fight Canada [freedomfight.ca], an "Anton Pillar order is an order allowing for an applicant (without notice to a respondent) to enter the respondent's premises and inspect or seize documents or other items."
Under the Patriot Act, the government is allowed (with a secret warrant) to conduct secret "sneak and peek" searches, without ever informing the target of the search.
The difference is that with Anton Pillar, a private entity can request the search -- so far under U.S. law, only the government can. Of course, if you can find a friendly prosecutor and convince him that there's a possibility a crime has been committed, he'll do your search for you. Indeed, some will argue that that makes U.S. law more favorable to corporations, large corporations generally having more sway with law enforcement than private citizens.
The other difference between Anton Pillar and the Patriot Act is that the legislative intent of the Patriot Act was that its provisions should apply only to suspected acts of terrorism. However, US Attorney General John Ashcroft has aggressively pushed to ignore the legislative intent behind the Patriot Act, and use its provisions for to investigate non-terrorist related activity.
Summary:
Conclusion: via the mechanism of the Patriot Act, "sneak and peek" searches could be conducted on behalf of the recording industry if it alleges that copyright "piracy" is linked to terrorist fundraising, or if John Ashcroft succeeds in using Patriot Act mechanisms for commonplace investigations.
So I think comparisons to the Patriot Act are warranted (no pun intended).
denial (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:denial (Score:5, Interesting)
Because most fascists are anonymous cowards until they get enough of them together to feel secure. Then they have their little beerhall putsch and start terrorizing the weak and defenseless.
The scary thing is, this isn't "government" by anything. It's a private entity given the right to force their way into your home because you MIGHT have something that belongs to them. These folks weren't elected by anyone except maybe the stockholders in an unopposed election. If I were Australian, I'd be jumping up and down asking who the hell gave corporations the right to act as a pseudo government. As a citizen of the world, I may just start jumping up and down anyway at the thought that the feared takeover by corporations has already begun. Does anyone here honestly think that Billy Boy wouldn't jump at the chance to run Amerika from his corporate office?
Re:denial (Score:5, Insightful)
Fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
If you read Musollini's paper on the subject (you'll find a copy in just about any introductory book on philosphy) you would find the fascism is basically the elevation of the state above all else (which Musollini basically equated himself too, in fascist states the dictator usually became a symbhol of the state and eventaully displaces the position of the state itself.) So you see, government raids are only a tool of fascism and not its main characteristic. Before the american revolution, british soldiers became infamous for searching peoples houses without warrant but that did not make the british fascists, only tyrants. So the charge you should be leveling is that of tyranny by the government. It led our country to revolution once before and such a charge is far more likely to get our public officals attention were calling them nazis will only get you ignored.
Re:fly off the handle much? (Score:5, Insightful)
- a free society with terrorists occasionally being able to carry out their strike and people occasionally breaking law (eg music piracy)
and
- a police state where people have no privacy and can be easily imprisoned/executed/deported/"made to disappear"
?
Note: this is just a general question in the context, specifically *not* referring to any particular legislation (such as Patriot Act) or country (such as US or China).
Re:fly off the handle much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:UYFB (Score:3)
In gratitude, I will call your kettle black: that last sentence of your first paragraph was a run on sentence, more comprehensible if changed to "...comments on an article where most are modded...". Oh, and it's spelled "grammar".
I've been thinking f
Re:MIPI? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh ya China, good idea, as long as you they did not facilitate the proliferation of information/material of which challenges the "Party".
"Between 1994 and the present, China's rules and regulations on the Internet became progressively more comprehensive, moving from efforts to regulate Internet business t