The definition of coincidence is interesting to contemplate.
Have P2P’ers 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:
http://www.mediadefender.com/antipiracy.html
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….
http://www.dailybits.com/media-defender-attacks-revision3-with-a-ddos/
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 things.
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.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23495134-5006787,00.html
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 Commissioner of Police) to seek an explanation.
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 iiNet case currently before the courts in
These questions beg investigation by at the very least a Senatorial inquiry committee.
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.
