Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Piracy Australia The Courts News

SMH Outs Copyright-Violation Hunters As Porn-Pushing Brothers 80

Posted by timothy
from the mixed-motives dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Media Rights Group, the company preparing mass U.S. style piracy law suits in Australia, has had its directors outed by the Sydney Morning Herald as Internet pornography kingpins Matthew and Richard Clapham. They also linked the pair to password hacking sites and a site previously being investigated by Australian authorities for its statement [to find drunk women and] 'call your friends, bring out the camera and then take turns to f### that drunk slut to a pulp.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SMH Outs Copyright-Violation Hunters As Porn-Pushing Brothers

Comments Filter:
  • by couchslug (175151) on Thursday October 20, 2011 @10:06AM (#37775106)

    "'Welcome to the nastiest adult site on the net,'' the text on the home page began. ''Our speciality is young girls drunk or drugged before they are brutally abused!!''

    • by omglolbah (731566)

      That isnt even remotely the nastiest on the net :p

      Look up the documentary "Graphic Sexual Horror" about the old (not shut down) site 'insex'...

      • A professor torturing professional performers is not really "nastier" than morons claiming to rape girls...though it may be better. Not surprising that government only shuts down the former site, since the moronic is more to its taste.
    • by bmo (77928)

      So basically they are admitting to encouraging, participating in, and filming rape.

      Good job guys.

      This extortion racket you concocted isn't going to help you when you are behind bars.

      It's only a matter of time.

      --
      BMO

      • by Anonymous Coward
        You are aware that this likely isn't actual rape, but simply a portrayal, right? Maybe not your taste, but certainly not illegal.
        • Actually in Australia, all simulated sexual violence in porn is illegal. Even simulated-sex non-porn depictions of rape, where it encourages or celebrates rape, is also illegal.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Much to the annoyance of kinky Australians who like to fantasise about being on either side of this stuff, no doubt...

          • by shaitand (626655)

            Not all rape is violent... this certainly wouldn't be. Also, clearly the default condition is consent. If the young sluts didn't indicate that they didn't want sex then Its All Good(TM)

            • I know you were playing, but for consent not to be withdrawn it must be capable of being withdrawn. If our drugged or drunk young slut is incapable of withdrawing consent, she is incapable of giving it, legally. Same as a child. And any form of coercion in sex is illegal in porn in Australia, even simulated. "Refused classification", same status as child porn. So our friendly neighbourhood Porn Brothers went from trading hacked accounts (also probably illegal in Australia, unauthorised access and all that),

        • by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 20, 2011 @11:22AM (#37776778)

          Drugged sex is non-consensual sex, and thus rape.

          Have a nice day.

          --
          BMO

          • by Desler (1608317)

            Yes, but this is all phoney and staged. The fact that you believe it's real is hilarious.

            • by bmo (77928)

              See FatLittleMonkey's post further up the thread.

              You seem to forget that they were going to make small breasted porn illegal in Australia because of kiddie porn moral panic.

              --
              BMO

              • You might actually find that small breasted porn is considered a 'fetish', and therefore unable to be given an R-18 rating in Australia according to the classification guidelines, and is recognised as X-18, which, depending on the state government concerned may or may not be illegal to sell. So technically, it already is...
          • So if two people who are drunk, or on another drug, and then have sex; then did they rape each other?
          • by shaitand (626655)

            That's a BS policy. Consent is the default, if she didn't withdraw consent theres nothing to see here.

            • So when you're drugged into unconsciousness and then ass-raped you'll be just fine with that. Silence = consent, after all. Right.

              Here's hoping you get to put those principles of yours to the test!

      • Behind bars? If they're lucky.

    • While I think their attitude towards women is disgraceful, it's clear that these men have future in banking.

    • by sjames (1099)

      So you're saying Media Rights Group is really just a natural continuation for their existing line of business? Locate the helpless and rape them?

  • by Hatta (162192)

    Porn is good, but copyright is bad.

  • Makes sense (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, 2011 @10:12AM (#37775232)
    Not content with having their actors get fucked up the ass, now they want everyone else to be fucked up the ass too.
  • by Moheeheeko (1682914) on Thursday October 20, 2011 @10:20AM (#37775378)
    ..what a man an donkey 3 midgets and 5 drunk women do after they push copyright law is on thier time.
  • Considering the way the Australian government casually seems to strip people of their rights, they'll probably still find a lot of support in Canberra.

    I don't try to understand the government in Australia .. so strange.

  • "Do you come from a land down under? Where business rules and their men plunder? Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover."

    If you're living in Australia, visit your local Pirate Party and consider to join [pirateparty.org.au] for free. That is the only way to stop this madness; the same-old, same-old parties will never give in.

  • They probably saw how much moolah the American operations were raking in and decided that they wanted in on the copyright racket as well. I mean, claiming losses equal to the GNP of a small country? You cannot let such a chance go unused! They probably are not making as much money on their porn and illegal license key operations as they used to anyway.

  • Follow the money.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Constantin (765902) on Thursday October 20, 2011 @10:25AM (#37775454)

    Even in the deepest, darkest days of the post 2000 internet bubble, one industry kept hiring the brightest and smartest DRM programmers they could find. And if you guessed/knew it was the porn industry, you are right. An acquaintance of mine went out to CA to enjoy the sunshine, the parties, etc.

    The porn industry was years ahead of its allegedly less salacious competition (i.e. Hollywood studios) in terms of streaming content securely, etc. reflecting their profit motives perfectly - the internet remains the killer app for the purveyors of smut since it gives its users the false impression of pursuing their "hobby" in the privacy of their home. As a result, adult 'bookstores' are likely on the decline in all but the most rural areas thanks to high-speed internet becoming more and more ubiquitous.

    But it seems that no DRM scheme has been unbreakable so far, so these sorts of draconian 'copyright' measures endorsed by smut kingpins and other content providers are simply another way to use the powers of the state to protect their economic interests. That the interests of the public may not be served by said legislation has been debated often, and usually in favor of reducing the length of copyrights to invigorate creative uses, discussion, etc. But, follow the money... and as long as content providers are sticking more cash into the popos of politicians than voters opposing such legislation, my guess is that politicians will parrot whatever soundbites they are told to repeat.

    • by tommy8 (2434564)
      It hasn't worked out to well for the porn kingpins cuz the internet is filled with free porn streaming over 'tube' sites.
    • by Fned (43219) on Thursday October 20, 2011 @10:45AM (#37775832) Journal

      But it seems that no DRM scheme has been unbreakable so far, so these sorts of draconian 'copyright' measures endorsed by smut kingpins and other content providers are simply another way to use the powers of the state to protect their economic interests.

      DRM is inherently breakable. You have to crack it open to use it. There is a legal way to do this, and an illegal way to do this, but one way or another, they're handing the keys to the same party they're attempting to restrict. Social factors, such as the powers of the State, or user apathy/co-operation, are THE ONLY thing that allows DRM to work.

    • by bjourne (1034822)
      Um no, you're wrong about DRM. Most porn studios never embraced DRM and almost none of the uses it today. It never was worth their time as it just took a single technical minded customer seeding torrents of their stuff to break it, so why bother? If it was true that content providers could rake in the dough simply by not using DRM, "embracing digital media" by making streaming and payment processing effortlessly and convenient, they would be swimming in billions.
  • This is sad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sqr(twg) (2126054) on Thursday October 20, 2011 @10:28AM (#37775520)

    When somebody starts making ad hominem arguments you know they are losing the debate. There are several good arguments to be made against these types of lawsuits, but "the plaintiffs are porn producers" is not one of them.

    • Re:This is sad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rezac (733345) on Thursday October 20, 2011 @11:03AM (#37776210)

      It's called the Clean Hands Doctrine. And yes it is very relevant that the "plaintiffs" to-be are trading in borderline illegal activities and otherwise unsavory characters.

    • ...and Password hacking sites - Which are used to break into copyright material that the law they are trying to push is designed to stop

      So not ad hominem, but Tu quoque

       

    • by sjames (1099)

      However, in this case it's a natural rebuttal for someone claiming to have the moral/ethical high ground. It's not "your arguments are wrong because you're a pig", it's "your claim to be morally superior is untrue because you commercialize rape porn".

    • Re:This is sad (Score:5, Informative)

      by DaveGod (703167) on Thursday October 20, 2011 @02:54PM (#37781874)

      The /. summary can easily be confused for ad hominem arguments, TFA cannot. It's one of those rare quality pieces of journalism.

      The porn background is absolutely core to the notion that the organisation is being set up with the intention to issue legal letters encouraging people to pay a fee to avoid humiliation of being taken to court for pirating porn. Or, as the House of Lords succinctly described it: ''straightforward legal blackmail".

      The secretive, murky background to the individuals and their organisations is also highly relevant to the above.

  • by swschrad (312009) on Thursday October 20, 2011 @10:46AM (#37775860) Homepage Journal

    now the porno-pimps are trying to (!) over the whole country's entertainment system. but to do so, they've had to enter the darkest black hole of the dark side... a contract with government.

    oh, lord, have mercy!

  • Strange bedfellows.

  • I could really care less about the porn thing (barring a few exceptions which I won't elaborate on here) but I'm really interested in the news about their being connected to password hacking.

    The cynic part of me says that it's illegal, they broke the law, and nothing will be done to prosecute them.

    The eternal wellspring of hope I have says that they'll be convicted by several countries of international computer crimes and sentenced to twenty years, just because.

    • by mgblst (80109)

      > I could really care less about the porn thing

      I could care less about grammar as well, which means that I do care about grammar, unlike yourself.

  • I know there's a joke there somewhere

  • I know they are wrong and that porn is free because all of the web sites say it is.

  • Yes, the abstract given on your front page is somewhat informative; I have a complaint, though, because I did not want to read such vulgar statements of intent regarding drunk women. If possible please give us readers the option of avoiding such content by leaving it out of the main-page abstract. Sorry to be a pain, I hope you understand.

Brain damage is all in your head. -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...