Ctrl C and V (also X and Z and I think P) predate Microsoft by quite some time.

So what you're trying to tell us is that it already has a lot in common with a vast array of existing religions?

If I had mod points, they would be yours.

BTW, I am actually the first to post this here? Is it old news? (I searched and got no related results for "Commadore")"

That would be because it is "commodore".

The point is that the world of things that compute is vastly more than just the single desktop you've got sitting in front of your face right now. Sure, in your perspective that's all you really can see everyday in the traditional definition of "computer", but there are vast arrays of networks and electronic devices and things you never ever consider the programming and workings of that you rely on every single day; and while they might have a plethora of different brandnames associated with them, behind the scenes is good ol' linux doing its stuff.

Sometimes it's more than enough to control everything *except* the most visible sector of a particular market, and honestly, it's probably better to be the invisible winner.

Well, I went from the article which alluded to it being the leak Assange was sitting on:

It looks like the hacker group, which frequents online message board 4chan, made good on a promise Wikileaks founder Julian Assange made several months ago.

In retrospect the word "perhaps" would have been better than "reportedly" because it really is quite the assumption, and I probably should have outright ignored any sentence that starts with "the hacker group" as a matter of principle. In my defense, I had just polished off a bottle of wine at the time of writing it. Sorry for the lack of clarity though.

In terms of A), I suspect it has to do with being below the theoretical threshhold facebook might have for identifying scam users who are there to scrape information for profit/social engineering/other bad thing. Had they targeted 1000 a little bell might have gone off at facebook HQ before they had an adequate chance to actually look at what they'd managed to access.

While it might give AFACT a better description of what it would potentially need to disconnect people, there are a few things in the summary by Judge Cowdroy which suggest even if they did, it still wouldn't happen.

13. Secondly, I find that a scheme for notification, suspension and termination of customer accounts is not, in this instance, a relevant power to prevent copyright infringement pursuant to s 101(1A)(a) of the Copyright Act, nor in the circumstances of this case is it a reasonable step pursuant to s 101(1A)(c) of the Copyright Act.

I find that iiNet did have a repeat infringer policy which was reasonably implemented and that iiNet would therefore have been entitled to take advantage of the safe harbour provisions in Division 2AA of Part V of the Copyright Act if it needed to do so. ... While iiNet did not have a policy of the kind that the applicants believed was required, it does not follow that iiNet did not have a policy which complied with the safe harbour provisions. However, as I have not found that iiNet authorised copyright infringement, there is no need for iiNet to take advantage of the protection provided by such provisions.

20. The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another. The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts.

The above taken from the judge's summary of the findings

426. There can be no doubt that the respondent has the contractual right to warn and terminate its subscribers pursuant to its CRA if a breach of its terms occurs. However, that does not, of itself, make termination a reasonable step or a relevant power to prevent infringement in all circumstances. It must be remembered that absent those contractual provisions, the respondent would have had no power to terminate subscribers even if they were found by a Court to have infringed copyright. The CRA constitutes the respondent’s standard contractual terms used by a wide variety of subscribers. Consequently, and unsurprisingly, the CRA seeks to provide sufficient contractual terms to cover all eventualities, both existing at the time of the writing of the CRA and into the future. That does not mean that such terms should or would always be exercised even if a contractual right to exercise them arises. 427. Further, the right to do something does not create an obligation to do something. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that the only two parties relevant to the enforcement of the CRA are the respondent and the subscriber. Should the contract be breached by the subscriber, it is entirely a matter for the respondent to decide whether to act on the contract. Had the respondent taken action against its subscribers based on an AFACT Notice and it was subsequently found that the allegation was unfounded, the respondent would have committed a breach of its contract with the subscriber and been made potentially liable for damages without any indemnity from the applicants or AFACT. In such circumstance it was not unreasonable that the respondent should have sought to be cautious before acting on information provided by a party unrelated to the CRA.

436. The Court does not consider that warning and termination of subscriber accounts on the basis of AFACT Notices is a reasonable step...

The above taken from the full findings available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html

Large paper posters can be vandalism, I was imagining something massive and pasted to their booth sign or something... Then I saw the photo.

I can see why they're quaking in their boots.