Australia probably does have overall higher property crime (burglaries). I'd rather that than violent crime though.

Rape stats are notoriously difficult to compare between countries as the definition and rates of reporting vary hugely, so I wouldn't read too much into that comparison. It's about like the comparisons of infant mortality that are often made that show the US doing very poorly - it's more to do with the fact that the US counts certain miscarriages and in-utero deaths that other countries don't.

How long/how long ago did you live in Australia? A lot of that stuff isn't accurate, particularly the stuff about duopolies:

- Most urban areas have a choice of dozens of broadband providers, since there has been separation of ownership of infrastructure (physical lines) and services provided over that infrastructure (ISPs) for almost 15 years now. Some more remote areas may only have a couple of choices ... but the vast majority can purchase ADSL connections from 10+ national providers, and many also have access to cable, VDSL or fibre providers on top of that. On the contrary, it's the *US* that is characterized by broadband duopolies - in most places you have a choice of the local DSL monopoly and the local cable monopoly.

- Cars? Huh? Australia has a range of makes available as large as anywhere else in the world. Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes, BMW, Volkwagen, Nissan, Mitsubishi, many others ... and some that you'd be hard pressed to find in the US (Euro makes like Skoda etc.) Perhaps you meant the choice of Australian-made vehicles? (in which case until recently limited you to Ford, GM, and some Toyotas)

Where Australia DOES have a stifling duopoly is in groceries: the two big supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths, account for the vast majority of supermarkets in the country. Aldi is making some inroads and there are local grocers still holding in in some areas, but it's still a pretty sad state of affairs.

You're right about prices - the cost of living is quite high (though, with the AUD only at 74 US cents now, it's a good 30% cheaper than it was a few years ago, measured in US dollar terms). But median wage is significantly higher as well, which offsets that to an extent.

Simply because multiple mass shooting stories come out of the US every year. In most of the world such an event would be a horrifying once-in-a-decade news story, yet they are almost routine coming out of America ... enough that they are almost treated as a mundane event. A substantial portion of stories that come out of the US are about such violence or related matters. That, plus the prominence of guns (and how 'normalised' they appear to be) in many popular US television shows.

The result is that guns are what springs to mind when one thinks of the US, because that aspect of America is unique among developed countries. You pay attention to what's different about a place, not the majority of stuff that's similar.

Decades ago I'd say that the prevalence of fast food was the common 'US stereotype'. But now fast food chains dominate over most of the world, that's no longer unique to America.

As someone who's done both AU-US and US-AU moves (full moves, moving entire lives/house contents/jobs etc. between the two countries), it's not really ~that~ expensive. Under $10,000 will buy you the airfare, space on a shipping container for your furniture and goods, and the relevant visa/immigration fees (depending on visa type, of course). I was self-funded for one of my moves, my company paid for the other.

Not saying that's chump change but it's not out of reach for a middle class professional. Of course this was just me and the wife ... if you have kids then you have to consider disruption to their education and social lives etc, which makes the prospect less desirable.

This isn't changing the rules. This is following the rules.

See my article in the ABA's Judges Journal about how judges had been bending the rules for the RIAA. "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless: Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigation". The Judges' Journal, Judicial Division of American Bar Association. Summer 2008 edition, Part 1 of The Judges Journals' 2-part series, "Access to Justice".

I beg to differ.

Malibu Media can't choose the venue, or the judge.

If Judge Hellerstein's decision is followed by other judges, it will be the death knell of the present wave of Malibu Media litigation.

While your argument for discovery has some logic to it, it is based on a false assumption of fact : that Malibu Media, once it obtains the name and address of the internet account subscriber, will serve a subpoena on that person in an attempt to find out the name of the person who should be named as a defendant.

Malibu Media's uniform practice, once it gets the name and address, is to immediately amend the complaint to name the subscriber as the infringer/defendant and then serve a summons and amended complaint, not a subpoena, on the subscriber.

This is in every single case .

Well said

If so, most judges have been unaware of it these past 10 years.

It's not binding on anyone. But Judge Hellerstein is a very well respected judge, so it will probably have a lot of 'persuasive authority'.

I haven't researched that question yet, and I may well be litigating that issue in the near future, since I have several cases against Malibu Media which are now in litigation mode... so all I can say is, stay tuned.

The Prenda people are a bunch of strange people who, based on reports I've read, may well wind up doing jail time. I know nothing about the Malibu Media people. If I did find out something really bad about them in would probably wind up in my court papers if relevant to the case or to their credibility.

Well I knew exactly what you meant Jane, even before you 'clarified' it.

I have to agree with you Jane Q. For 10 years I've been trying to wake the courts up to the fact that they're not supposed to bend the law to help content owners just because the content owners don't know who committed the infringement. Glad to see them coming around.

You also have to prove that the person you're suing actually committed the infringement. It's not enough that they paid the bill for an internet service account that somebody used to commit an infringement.