Yes, I heard about that iinet.net.au stuff.  And it's not good to have other countries' people breaking jurisdiction.  People used to care about jurisdiction, it's good to know the US doesn't anymore.

Best regards,
Steven.

I know that a lot of US business, the MPAA and RIAA specifically in this case, are pushing US law enforcement to do something about it because as they say it, it's a US product, with US and International protections, but nobody from the international side of things is doing anything about it, and as is the case with iinet for example, the companies going to the people who can do something about it are futile efforts because they hide behind their own laws and regulations, so we need our people to do something about it.

And they wouldn't be wrong.

Basically, these are protected works that aren't being protected.  People are using borders to claim they have a right to do what they are doing completely forgetting about the International copyright laws.  I don't blame them for ignoring those because it's well established that they don't mean a damned thing since movies and music can be traded freely in countries with loose policies all the while hurting the business in the US.

For a record label in the US, it's a pretty difficult position to be in.  You want to sell your artist's works, but you know that all someone has to do is take the CD, cross the border into Canada, and it can be put on the net and passed around without violating Canadian law.  Someone could take it to Australia and make 'back up' copies even though the copyrights specifically state you cannot because Australian law says it's okay.  All of a sudden, your sales start to drop off.  An album that could have gone platinum multiple times over barely get's gold.  You can sit there and say well, they're greedy anyway, they have lots of money, they covered all of their costs the first day of release.  Sometimes that's true, but only for the popular artists.  What about the not so popular ones, what about the new ones no one has ever heard of before except for some music exec at a high school or college theater production or recital who thinks that person has a great voice...  These are people who will NOT get their chance because the industry will adopt internal policies that basically say if we can't make our money back in the first few days of public release before this stuff hits the net, then we're not going to sign this artist...  It would be too risky to do business with unproven talent.  That translates into less music.  Less ground breaking sounds.  Less creations that just blow your mind because its so fresh and new and unlike anything you've heard before...

Most of the nay-sayers or those against the US law enforcement from going after people who willfully violate the laws are people who clearly are not linked to the otherside of the debate, nor have even bothered to consider what might happen in the future if things continue on the way they are.  How would you like it if the movie and music industries adopted the video game policies for DRM?  In order to play a CD or DVD, your player must connect to their servers and must remain connected for the duration of you playing the CD or DVD, or BluRay?  What if you had to buy special players that will automatically detect when their internal software or hardware has been modified and automatically permanently shut down?

You'd be screaming that it's total bullshit that you have to buy all new players and can't use it in your car, or play it over at your buddy's place.  It will go that way if countries aren't willing to help alleviate the problem.  I sure as hell don't want it to go that way because I wouldn't buy anything that had that type of steamlike protection.  Sure hackers and their ilk will find cracks for it, but what about the average consumer?  Those that actually do have a social conscience?  They must suffer the excess protections because of lack of international cooperation...  Is it really that hard for a nation like Great Brittan to say, 'This is a clear violation of their copy right laws and it wouldn't be right of us to allow this to go on the way it is.  If it was one of our businesses suffering because of someone in the US doing this, we'd expect their cooperation and support in the matter.'  Is it really that hard for the Australian courts to say, 'No, we can't let our ISPs regulate content.  HOWEVER, this court's ruling is that the matter is being turned over to the Federal Police for investigation and due process according to Australian and International laws.'  That is a far better answer then a straight, nope, you get no help here, go back home.

What is being demanded by the RIAA and MPAA are far in excess of the requirements of international copyright law.  Many of the services and behaviors they reject to are perfectly legal in other countries.  The current laws on the books in the United States are much stricter than required under international copyright law, so many countries will be far more lenient.

This is incorrect.  Even ignoring the copyright reform legislation pending, distributing copywritten works over the internet is currently illegal in Canada and there are well-defined legal channels to shut them down.

The only significant legal loophole we have currently is that you can loan a physical disk to someone else, they can make a copy of it, and then return the disk to you while retaining the copy.  This loophole will be closed shortly, and because it only applies to loaning original physical media it's mostly symbolic anyways since it's utterly unenforceable.

Also incorrect; once sold, copyright is exhausted.  You can create copies for personal use as much as you like, so long as you don't distribute them to other people.  In recent years, there has been the claim that rightsholders can "license" a work to restrict end-user rights, but this interpretation has not been upheld in all instances and jurisdictions, and remains an area of legal uncertainty.  It also will be heavily influenced by contract law, which can vary dramatically.

Also wrong; music sales are up despite piracy.  Sales of albums are down, but this is due to people moving towards services like iTunes where they're more likely to buy individual tracks than an entire album.  This is a statistical sleight of hand, pointing to the one area where music sales are down to paint the current situation as catastrophic, ignoring the fact that music sales overall are up. 

They're actually doing way better than ever.  Digital distribution has lowered costs and increased competition, so they can access wider markets that were formerly unavailable to them and take a bigger share of revenues.  It's never been a better time to be a little guy.  The only segment of the music industry that is down is albums, everything else is at an all-time high. 

This has nothing to do with stopping piracy and everything to do with shutting down innovative competitors.  DRM has been an abysmal failure at controlling distribution, but has proven very useful as a legal tool for attacking new inventions that technically bypass digital locks.  This is about creating legal barriers to new and innovative technologies that could compete with older business models.  Rather than fostering innovation, protecting intellectual property through legally-enforced technical protection measures is hindering it.

Implementing protections that are too strong has the potential to shut down new and innovative services.  The goal of copyright law is to strike a balance between the rightholders, consumers, and intermediaries that offer services.  Every country will strike a different balance, and I think there's a wide range of policies with different strengths and drawbacks.  We need to accept that different jurisdictions will have different policies, and international law should set bare minimum standards that leave a wide range for individual national policies.

The United States currently has very stringent laws on the books.  I'd argue that they're much too strong, and are choking out new and innovative services and treating legitimate consumers like criminals.  If the sky really were falling and the music industry was on the brink of collapse and no one was making music anymore, then you'd have grounds to argue for stronger protections.  But this isn't the case; music is prospering around the globe in spite of rampant piracy.  If anything, what we're seeing right now indicates that these draconian "protections" are completely unnecessary and may be counter-productive by discouraging innovation in other fields.

I was told by somebody [can't vouch for the validity] that the Australian Federal Police turned up with US FBI agents next door too him to make arrests regarding illegal file sharing.  According to the informant, the FBI agents formed the case against his neighbour and only required the AFP to be there to execute the warrant... that once the paperwork was dispensed with the FBI agents did the actual arrest/cuffing.  If true, that's just not f**king right.  The Yanks wouldn't tolerate our law enforcement officials making arrests on their soil, regardless of the circumstances, and they have NO business doing so here.

I think we will see more of the United Nations police force Interpol doing this more and more.
http://www.justice.gov/usncb/ 

Here is the Interpol site page on there upcoming IP cooperation for member countries.
http://www.interpol.int/Public/FinancialCrime/IntellectualProperty/Default.asp 

Not to sure on the following links integrity yet 

Interpol Immunity from US law
http://www.hudson-ny.org/990/interpol-immunity

also liveleak reports
Obama grants INTERPOL diplomatic immunity, freedom from US Law 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7b3_1262648082 

I had just started some research for a friend on this and no conclusions or opinions yet, just more questions.

It was my understanding the Interpol was only investigative and not boots on the ground. It was also new to me that Interpol has a permanent position now in the US. Now I see a video showing the UN partnering with Interpol and training almost 20,000 boots on the ground police for "peace keeping" missions and conflict places. These police do not look like police, they look like military with machine guns.

I guess the next G20 summit in Canada will now have UN jackboot thugs bashing me on the head and my government will not even be allowed to investigate. 

Sadly, the RIAA and MPAA are increasingly using law enforcement agencies as thugs to uphold/enforce their view of things.  Some years ago copyright infringement was a civil matter and prosecuted by the copyright holder... however, dissatisfied with their own efforts and the huge costs involved in bringing violators before the courts, the RIAA and MPIAA has conned the US government into wearing the jack boots and stomping heads for them.

What is so despicable about the whole thing is that these film and music associations do not truly represent the artists they claim to represent but rather have created a whole new industry of litigation to support themselves and bunches of lawyers.  If these parasites actually represented the people they claim to it wouldn't be so bad, but when major artists [Jagger, Springstein, McCartney, Clapton, and others] all condemn these associations and their methods and practices, the greed that drives it, you can bet your sweet bippy the true owners of the material [the artists] are not the primary focus here and see very little of these prosecutions/court settlements.

I am sorry - we will just disagree.  Again, there are no guarantees in life, and so the best you can actually say is that the cure has the potential.  But that is still irrelevant.  it was not your time and talent or mine that created it.  If you believe in copyrights, then you would agree (I did not say like) with patent sitting.  it is theirs to do with as they please.  Do not like it?  Get rid of it for all.  I do not think an artists time is more valuable than a neurosurgeons, but your valuation system gives that weight - because of the situation - which is the definition of situational ethics.

Way to Go Oz!  I think the issues should be discussed and agreed to by nations, but not dictated to by one nation.  Glad that some see it that way.

I think they would have to change the law that said links are illegal, but that is their right to do so.  And I agree.

That's my whole point... that international boundaries and national sovereignity must be respected at all times.

For example [and this is a general question/response, not a personal one], if you did something that was a crime in Nth Korea or Iran, for example, would you want law enforcement squads from those countries arresting you on your home soil with the intent to try you there?   Firstly, what is a crime in those countries may not be a crime in your own... and secondly, does their jurisdiction extend to your neck of the woods? 

Probably not, and that is why the US must not be permitted to enforce/impose its will on other sovereign nations.  If lawful agreements cannot be reached in some instances, so be it and move on... prolonged attacks on the laws and ideals of other nations will soon wear thin and garner little sympathy for the US, if any at all from some quarters.  Put bluntly, the RIAA and MPIAA are not doing the US government [the entire US image] any favours, by implicating official government agencies in what essentially are civil matters.

Yes, and the main reason for that is a moving of the goal posts and a blurring of the lines between what are civil and criminal matters... then using US Government agencies to enforce the will of US corporate entities on foreign soil.  That is clearly wrong, and if the shoe were on the other foot the US would not tolerate it... foreigners making demands on their home soil.

Furthermore, I know that Americans are touchy about their taxes [what they are spent on] and this is a clear case of taxpayers money being used for corporate purposes rather than the common good.  So why aren't US citizens jumping up and down about the misappropriation of their tax dollars?  Moreover, government intervention and/or control is frowned upon by most in the US, so why is it okay for the US government to be involved in such [civil] matters?  Is is okay because it's overseas and conquering foreigners while they're doing that they're leaving you alone?

In short, the US image is looking quite low worldwide, and wrongs such as these need to be righted before the citizens of this world hold it in any higher esteem again. 

I just looked up where offices of the FBI are and holy crap, they are everywhere  . 
http://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/legat

Preventing intellectual property theft is a top priority of the FBI’s cyber program. We specifically focus on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers' health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to our success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr 

Operation Fastlink has resulted in more than 120 search warrants executed in 12 countries; the confiscation of hundreds of computers and illegal online distribution hubs; and the removal of more than $50 million worth of illegally copied software, games, movies and music from illicit distribution channels. Operation Fastlink is the culmination of multiple FBI undercover investigations targeting individuals involved in the illegal reproduction and distribution of movies, games, business software and music.

Operation Fastlink was conducted by the FBI, including the New Haven Field Office in coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut and the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS). This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Chang and Senior Counsel Clement McGovern of CCIPS.
http://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-releases/2009/nh030609b.htm/ 

No...that is NOW incorrect as pertaining to Australia.  Prior to a few years ago it WAS CORRECT.

Prior to that bloody fair-trade agreement between Howard and Bush it WAS illegal to make backup copies of your media in Australia.

NOW, however we [Oz] match the US 'version' of Copyright Law so it's allowed.

Extremes sometimes do make very good examples - and you gave an excellent one!

How about this one.  An American spies on China, gets the goods and gets home.  China finds out and comes here and arrests him and executes him. 

It is allowed, but they prevent you from doing it.  And the government does nothing to stop them from interfering with YOUR rights.