[LINK] The US and THEM of P2P
tomk at unwired.com.au
Thu Mar 5 00:16:55 EST 2009
Boys and girls, I thought my blog piece tonight was so brilliant - I
would quote it in its entirety for your reading pleasure.
The definition of coincidence is interesting to contemplate.
Have P2Pers notice the remarkable coincidental disappearance of the
majority of fake files and malware ridden content since Media Defender
laid its little head down ?
And interestingly enough, it was the content industry that was paying
them to infect our computers and waste our bandwidth. They may deny
these allegations, but a quote from their web pages speaks volumes:
Decoying and Spoofing are the most commonly known techniques that we
employ. We send blank files and data noise that look exactly like a
real response to an initiated search requests for a particular title.
Pirated files will no doubt be on the networks, but with our protection
applied it would be easier to find a needle in a hay stack than a real
file amongst our countermeasures
And they obviously employed other companies computers to do this from
In any other world it would be called accessory to the fact. But
accessory to the fact requires a policeman somewhere in the formula to
carry out the arrest and of course the Police are busy with other
As evidenced by the story from Colin Jones of the Adelaide Advertiser it
would appear that there is a law for us and a law for them.
HUNDREDS of police officers across South Australia caught using their
work computers to illegally copy movie DVDs will escape prosecution.
The activity - strictly banned under federal copyright laws - was
detected during an audit conducted by the information technology branch
of SA Police.
Under federal laws, severe penalties can be imposed on video piracy.
Penalties include fines of up to $60,500 for individuals and up to
$302,500 for corporations for each individual infringement, and up to
five years' imprisonment.
Police sources have told The Advertiser an official investigation, which
could lead to criminal charges, will not be conducted because of the
large number of police officers involved in copying DVDs.
So of course AFACTS (the Australian Federation Against Copyright
Theft) said it would write to Mr Hyde (the Police Commissioner) to seek
A search of the AFACTS site shows no reference to the matter. Did AFACTS
press for prosecution of the individual officers? Did it receive a
response from the Commissioner of Police?
Does its selective choice of prosecution targets have any bearing on the
case currently before the courts in West Australia ?
These questions beg investigation by at the very least a Senatorial
Why are our courts being utilised for vexatious litigation when our law
enforcement officers are incapable of adhering to the legislation?
Is this evidence that the moral majority do not consider sharing of
content to be illegal.
I would put it to the Australian Government - that it is.
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 220.127.116.11
More information about the Link