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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:60 million times? (Score 1) 185

No, the claim is, "has been illegally viewed more than 60 million times." (Emphasis mine) No mention of geographic scope, but the figure is utterly unsupportable anyway. Even if they knew precisely how many allegedly infringing copies had been made (they don't) there is no way of knowing how many times a movie has been viewed. It could be anything from zero to 60 million views with anything from one to one gajillion allegedly infringing copies in existence.

Comment: Re:What I want to know is... (Score 4, Informative) 136

by GumphMaster (#49427721) Attached to: Australian ISPs Must Hand Over Pirates' Info

The Voltage Pictures VP of Royalties was interviewed on the radio as I drove home today. He said that Voltage is doing this because a small producer they cannot cannot cross-subsidise from other parts of the business to cover the losses due to infringing copies of their movies (His argument was clearly based on the assumption that every infringing copy is a lost sale). The big players can afford to do this and see the negative press as more costly than the potential increase in revenue. He refused to be drawn on what they would be demanding from the alleged infringers. There were also some poor choices of words, assumption of guilt, and sense that they are the law.

Read ( or listen ( to the show.

Comment: Re:Just a Moment... (Score 4, Interesting) 136

by GumphMaster (#49427205) Attached to: Australian ISPs Must Hand Over Pirates' Info

I am sure that the plaintiff in this case would dearly love to engage in "speculative invoicing" and to do that they need somewhere to send a legal threat with a nice "make it go away for only $2000" clause. The judge has at least considered this, so the plaintiff must pass any correspondence destined for the parties revealed here through the court. That should at least control the extraction of money by threat of legal action with no intent to proceed to actual litigation. My guess is that the plaintiff will try to ID one or two endpoints that look like a business/individual with reasonable sized pockets and try to set a precedent with them.

This decision, and the recent data retention law that ensures these records exist for fishing expeditions, have essentially ensured that VPN providers will do well out of Aussies.

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 1) 124

by GumphMaster (#49351849) Attached to: Australia Passes Mandatory Data Retention Law
No you are not reading that wrong. Journalists sources have (had) protection in courts under the Evidence Act for a long time, and the definition of journalist was quite broad. The early versions of this bill subverted that protection completely, but a watered down protection of journalists sources was added to secure the major opposition party's support. They deliberately narrowed the scope of "Journalist" to limit the number of warrants that might need to be sought.

Comment: Re:Hack for a shitty law (Score 5, Informative) 124

by GumphMaster (#49350451) Attached to: Australia Passes Mandatory Data Retention Law

The law tightens the definition of "Journalist" over that in the existing Evidence Act so that this is impractical.

Evidence Act

Journalist means a person who is engaged and active in the publication of news and who may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium.

This law:

(i) a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist; or (ii) an employer of such a person;

If you are not being paid to be a journalist or paying someone to be a journalist then you are not a journalist, and warrants are not required, under this law. A subtle and deliberate difference.

Comment: Re:What difference does it make (Score 4, Interesting) 124

by GumphMaster (#49350383) Attached to: Australia Passes Mandatory Data Retention Law

Making the ISP keep it too:

  1. Makes it reliably available for litigation by big media over copyright infringement and removes the ability of ISP to defend customer privacy with inconvenient legal actions or by simply not holding the information. Hosting privacy protecting proxy/VPN services has essentially be outlawed on Australian soil... or will be as the holes in this legislation become evident and the scope creep continues.
  2. Makes it reliably available for abuse by political parties: want to know who leaked the embarrassing x? Simple warrantless search with no oversight.

Comment: Re:Ghostery (Score 1) 219

by GumphMaster (#46917001) Attached to: Help EFF Test a New Tool To Stop Creepy Online Tracking

A radio station I listen to recently rebranded. Their "improved" web site does not deliver content without the WebTrends tracking code being allowed through NoScript/Ghostery. I seems to do do some magic callback foo to achieve this. This behaviour seems to rapidly expanding on the site; I found a page today that required NetCensus tracking as well. Curiously I get more content if I block JS altogether (although not fully functional).

Comment: Re:Cause an Elected Dictatorship ? (Score 1) 465

by GumphMaster (#46895829) Attached to: Lessig Launches a Super PAC To End All Super PACs

The UK/ca/AU/nz Prime Ministers are effectively elected dictators

Bwah ha ha ha ha! You clearly have not been paying attention to Australian politics since 2007. The "dictator" was toppled several times by revolt from within and ended up running a minority Government until the election in Sep 2013. A "dictator" dependent on the support of minor parties to govern is hardly the description of one with unrestricted control. The current "dictator" is having trouble quelling the open discontent from within his own coalition in several policy areas and cannot get important policy initiatives through the parliament. Unfettered power? I don't think so.

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan