Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Crime Piracy Apple

Pirate Apple TV Operation Nabbed In Australia 128

Posted by samzenpus
from the pirate-channel dept.
littlekorea writes "New South Wales Police have arrested a man selling USB keys bearing the Apple logo, which offered access to over a thousand Pay TV channels, another thousand movies on demand and several hundred adult films. A forensic analysis of the device revealed the content was hosted in China but streamed via US servers and domains."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pirate Apple TV Operation Nabbed In Australia

Comments Filter:
  • No need for new laws (Score:3, Informative)

    by LostCluster (625375) * on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @11:29PM (#38899349)

    It seems like the content industry has solved it... no need for SOPA/PIPA to be passed, just pay lawyers to sue and tell police to find pirates and the problem is solved.

    • That's what I told my Congressman.

    • Speck had purchased a USB stick branded âApple iPad6 TVâ(TM) from the premises for $99, which alongside a $50 per month subscription fee purported to offer over 1100 pirate TV channels (including MTV, Discovery Channel, ESPN, CNN, HBO, Fox and the BBC), over 1000 first-release movies on-demand (including Hugo, Tin Tin and Mr Poppers Penguins), over 600 adult films and downloads of popular television programs including âThe Family Guy and âBig Bang Theoryâ(TM).

      A forensic analysis of the USB stick found it offered "proxied and peer to peer access to restricted sites" hosted within China and the United States, which host several pay TV stations as well as streaming videos and other copyright materials.

      Why deal with those assholes in the first place?

      • by flyneye (84093)

        Funnier yet, they still have to pay $50 plus whatever their service provider wants for streaming over a stupid damn phone anyway.
        If it were a car you'd pay to unlock the steering wheel, pay a monthly fee for seat rental, then pay a toll every two blocks.
        I'll stick with my not-so-smartphone and watch tv/movies on a viewable screen with a real sound system.
        Lol, pirates paying additional fees for stolen tv content ROFLMAO....

        • by kcitren (72383)

          Funnier yet, they still have to pay $50 plus whatever their service provider wants for streaming over a stupid damn phone anyway.

          Huh? This device has nothing to do with phones. It's software that goes on a windows machine that happens to be packaged on a USB stick that's branded as Apple iPad6 TV. On another note, I'm beginning to associate the "Pssh, I not own a smartphone" crowd with the "Oh sorry, I don't own a TV" crowd. It's fine either way [with / without a TV / smartphone], but it doesn't make you superior in any way, and you don't need to go out of your way to make people know.

          • by flyneye (84093)

            Huh? This device has nothing to do with phones.

            Phones, bittypads whatever , You're gonna get astigmatism from your dinky screen in addition to paying outragious idiot tax for crap thats free or less for other devices. Phones and pads are morphing into each other anyway.

            On another note, I'm beginning to associate the "Pssh, I not own a smartphone" crowd with the "I didn't get a trendy lobotomy" crowd. It's fine either way [with / without a frontal lobe], but it doesn't make you superior in any way, and you don't need to go out of your way to make people know.

            I'll take that under advisement.

      • by iluvcapra (782887)

        Why deal with those assholes in the first place?

        Yeah, they would have made so much more money selling access to Kickstarter-financed mumblecore movies, Red vs. Blue episodes and Vimeo music videos. Because Open Always Wins(tm).

        Can we just abandon the pretense that piracy doesn't cost any artist any money ever? I guess if you're sending an mkv of a Red Dwarf episode to your brother that just sorta happens and there's nothing evil about that, but these stories keep cropping up where some guy with a server s

    • Actually this article is far less interesting than this [technology...tor.com.au] one. A copyright ruling in the Federal court makes it essentially impossible for sporting organisations to charge for internet broadcast rights to any content which also streams on free-to-air tv. Which may or may not be good thing...
    • by Hatta (162192)

      All the law enforcement in the world won't stop a bit of piracy. Look at what 40 years of the War on Drug Users has gotten us. It's still easier for a kid to get a joint than a beer. Does anyone think a war on piracy would be any more effective?

  • FTFA: “Customers of this criminal enterprise are not unintended beneficiaries of the digital revolution, they are receivers of stolen property,” he said.

    Unless the USB keys themselves were stolen, to which there appears to be no mention of (and you can be sure they would mention it), there is no transfer of property.

    We need to (I realize easier said than done) get the media to start correcting ridiculous statements.
     

    • by lazycam (1007621) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @11:48PM (#38899467)
      Not sure where you are from, but in the USA our courts treat digital content as property. Also, unauthorized access to password protected content falls under the same umbrella [wikipedia.org]. I am unfamiliar with the laws covering digital content and password protected services in the UK, but I imagine the laws are either (1) more restrictive or (2) the courts have taken it upon themselves to issue warrants regardless of the laws on the books.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        That's right, so you better give the property back, or else. This isn't a controversy over whether it is "property". If I take a picture of a painting that is hanging in your house, I haven't stolen it.

        Stolen implies that the original owner no longer owns it.

        Once you thick-headed morons finally get this through your skull, we can begin having intelligent discussions about copyright infringement and what to do about it.

        • What if you treat them as service providers rather than asset owners.

          Say I provide a service to people. At the point that people pay, someone sets up a register, and claims that you can pay him half the price for full settlement. Has the customer 'stolen' the service? Or has the guy stolen the money from the customer?

      • by psiclops (1011105) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:09AM (#38899599)

        Australia is not in the UK. We have our own laws seperate from the empire.

        Although according to this article [news.com.au] they have identified 100 customers and will be pursuing them for recieving stolen goods. I dont know how that'll go in court though.

        • by lazycam (1007621)

          Australia is not in the UK.

          I appologize. I blame my US education for my ignorance [cnn.com] of [msn.com] geography [bbc.co.uk].

          • by psiclops (1011105)

            i wouldnt trust that last link. apparently the author doesnt know the difference between a country and a continent.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward
            From your third link:

            11% of Americans could not find America

            *removes sunglasses* Mother of god...

        • Australia is not in the UK.

          If you put the queen of england on your money, you're british!
          • by Cimexus (1355033) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @01:38AM (#38900023)

            Actually, the Queen of Australia is on our money. The fact that the same physical person also happens to be the Queen of England is irrelevant. One person, multiple hats.

            When the Queen is in Australia, she's not there as the Queen of England (or any other Commonwealth realm). All the standards, flags, titles associated with her role as Queen of England are nowhere to be seen - the Australian equivalents are used instead. For instance this flag [wikipedia.org] will be on her vehicle.

            One might argue that it's all a subtle technicality. But we don't put the Queen of England on our money, any more than the UK puts the Queen of Australia on theirs.

            • That's what worries me. When Britain becomes a republic, does that mean Her Royal Highness will move here to Australia for good? ;)

              • There was an interesting discussion recently about the order of succession. Apparently the Poms are planning to change the order of succession so the the crown will descend to the first born child regardless of gender.

                If they do that, and Australia doesn't, in the future the Queen of England and the King of Australia will obviously be different people.

              • Well, she may decide to move to Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, or Tuvalu -- all of which also hold her as their nation's supreme monarch (and have no direct ties to England or the UK).

                Of course, the fact that in the past UK monarchs have often lived abroad (and for everyone but the UK, their monarch lives abroad) means that she's not likely to m

        • by Hognoxious (631665) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @08:34AM (#38901351) Homepage Journal

          Australia is not in the UK. We have our own laws seperate from the empire.

          It would be futile for Australians to hang on to British laws, given that most of them were sent there because they didn't obey them.

      • by EdIII (1114411)

        Not sure where you are from, but in the USA our courts treat digital content as property

        No. They most certainly do not.

        You can consider three components comprising an instance of intellectual property.

        1) The physical medium upon which the content is transferred.
        2) The content itself.
        3) The copyright that provides certain legal entitlements to the copyright holder to control what happens with the content in specific ways.

        What is treated as physical property is the copyright not the content. That is why it is said that somebody can "own" a copyright. They don't "own" the content, but get to t

      • by msobkow (48369)

        More specifically, they applied value to the copyright materials by charging for it. It's the act of charging a fee which changes it from simple copyright violation to actual theft in my books. The media companies are barking up the wrong tree to pursue those who preview media and buy it later if it's worthwhile, but those who SELL copyrighted media are obviously taking something of value, or they wouldn't be able to CHARGE for it.

        • by 1u3hr (530656)

          More specifically, they applied value to the copyright materials by charging for it. It's the act of charging a fee which changes it from simple copyright violation to actual theft in my books

          So , it's not the act of copying, but the selling afterwards, that makes it "theft"?

          Bollocks. While selling it certainly makes it a more serious crime, it has absolutely nothing to do with "theft". If you believe it's as serious as theft, fine, say that. But it's still NOT theft.

          You're simply defining them as guilty of a crime that never was committed.

          This is like those people who label anyone with a different political opinion "traitors" or "terrorists".

      • While you're somewhat correct in that US courts (and lawmakers) sometimes act as if digital content is real property and that there are laws against unauthorized access to password protected content in the US and UK, what does that have to do with anything? The post to which you replied, and the article to which he refers, don't mention either country nor do the events related in the article take place in either country. There isn't even any mention in either of them about unauthorized access to password pr
    • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:37AM (#38899745) Journal

      Unless the USB keys themselves were stolen ... there is no transfer of property. We need to ... get the media to start correcting ridiculous statements.

      The companies doing the reporting are also the companies who own the "content" that is being "stolen" (or "copied without purchase of the right to do so").

      So I wouldn't bother spending any effort trying to get them to change their language to be more accurate (but less accusatory).

    • by mjwx (966435) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:45AM (#38899761)

      FTFA: “Customers of this criminal enterprise are not unintended beneficiaries of the digital revolution, they are receivers of stolen property,” he said.

      Unless the USB keys themselves were stolen, to which there appears to be no mention of (and you can be sure they would mention it), there is no transfer of property.

      We need to (I realize easier said than done) get the media to start correcting ridiculous statements.

      Indeed, the "customers" were victims of fraud. The fraud being committed by the one who was arrested for selling fraudulent goods.

      Also please note, the person who the article quoted was Michael Speck, A copyright "specialist" working for "international entertainment networks" not the NSW police.

      As for receiving stolen goods, legally "The Crown must prove that, at the time of receipt of the goods, the accused knew or believed them to have been stolen." So if the Crown (what the state is called in court in Oz) cannot prove the purchaser knew the goods were stolen at the time of purchase, they cannot be charged with receiving stolen goods. Thus the customers are victims of fraud and this copyright "specialist" is full of shit.

  • What? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Vrtigo1 (1303147)
    How is content hosted in china but streamed via US servers? That statement doesn't make much sense.
    • Especially since TFA clearly states:

      it offered “proxied and peer to peer access to restricted sites” hosted within China and the United States

    • How is content hosted in china but streamed via US servers? That statement doesn't make much sense.

      It doesn't make much sense to me either, especially when the original article clearly says "hosted within China and the United States"

      Speck told iTnews he offered the opportunity for Apple Australia to also pursue the retailer to protect its trademarks, but to his disappointment the company declined.

      Yes, it sounds more like Apple probably didn't want to hire him. Whether Apple Australia pursues this case, or not, it's not any of his business anyway. The last thing Apple needs is to hire (or even endorse) a self-designated "copyright specialist" (whatever the hell that title means). The last thing any Corporation needs is an unknown self-designated over-eager PI. Private

  • by webdog314 (960286) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @11:42PM (#38899445)

    Just because the guy choses a USB stick with an Apple logo on it (that's not even made by Apple) doesn't mean it has *anything* to do with Apple or Apple TV. Was he somehow spoofing iTunes accounts?

    • by infurnus (1897136)
      In the article, you can see they used the Apple logo in their GUI as well, and had "iPad TV" written next to the apple logo on the USB drives.
      There was also a "Made in Taiwan" text next to that.

      Technically, even if these USB drives/keys weren't counterfeit, they still committed trademark infringement.
    • by psiclops (1011105)

      Nope. It seems apple wanted nothing to do with it either.

      From TFA:

      Speck told iTnews he offered the opportunity for Apple Australia to also pursue the retailer to protect its trademarks, but to his disappointment the company declined.

    • by mjwx (966435) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:51AM (#38899793)

      Just because the guy choses a USB stick with an Apple logo on it (that's not even made by Apple) doesn't mean it has *anything* to do with Apple or Apple TV. Was he somehow spoofing iTunes accounts?

      Actually, it's selling fraudulent goods.

      The USB sticks were being sold _as_ Apple products when they were not. Just because the purchaser was dumb enough to buy them (first dumb enough to buy Apple, then dumb enough to buy fake Apple products) does not excuse it.

    • by scdeimos (632778)
      It's weird they called them counterfeit Apple products, twice, when Apple doesn't make anything like it.
      • by Kjella (173770)

        Doesn't matter. If you fooled people into thinking a handbag is a new Gucci design, complete with the Gucci logo and all then that would be a counterfeit Gucci whether they actually make a handbag that looks anything like it or not. All that matters is that you present it as an official product, whether it exists or not.

    • by 1u3hr (530656)
      Pretty dumb to call them "counterfeit devices bearing the Apple trademark". They were simply USB thumbdrives. There was no "counterfeiting" (except the logo itself). It was simply a way to deliver a piece of software that accessed the servers. Maybe it acted as a dongle.

      Obviously aimed at people who don't have a clue how to use a computer to download or stream content themselves; otherwise who would pay for this?

      The police must love this method because they have a physical "device" to bag and tag and pr

  • by Zontar The Mindless (9002) <plasticfish@info.gmail@com> on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @11:43PM (#38899447)

    ...of Michael Speck, Undercover International Entertainment Network Copyright Specialist, ...

    Aw hell, it's late. Somebody take the ball and run with it.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @11:48PM (#38899469)

      we travel to the far reaches of papua new guinea where they don't have electricity and sue an entire tribe. the tribe settles the dispute by eating the lawyers.

    • ...of Michael Speck, Undercover International Entertainment Network Copyright Specialist, ...

      Aw hell, it's late. Somebody take the ball and run with it.

      If James Bond had been first dreamed up in 2012, that's what he'd be.

      Blofeld would be a serial downloader, or maybe mastermind of the Pirate Party. His cat's name would be a copyright violation.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @11:52PM (#38899491)

    Best. Slashvertisement. Ever. Where can I get one of these?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by yamum (893083)
      I actually had a demo one of these type things and tcpdump'd the traffic. Found it used sopcast [sopcast.org] so easily made a version of the dongle in perl. All Korean content but streamed from China.
    • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @01:11AM (#38899875) Journal
      It is too bad that you are modded funny.

      Why is it that the only way to get access to this kind of content is through illegal means ? How did this society go so wrong that a product that is technicably feasible since a decade, highly desirable with millions of potential clients, was made impossible to create ?

      Shouldn't lawmakers adress this problem ? The ACTA lobbyists tried to find ways to preserve revenue streams that seem frankly unsustainable in today's technology environment but did not wonder how they could make international agreements to make new revenues possible.
      • Because you have no right to someone else's work?

        Until matter replicators become a reality, the hard truth is monied interests will still grab artists and performers by the balls because all the notions of good intentions and free culture doesn't put food on the table. However, the assholes in the entertainment industry are willing to pay if they're willing to work within their system.

        • Because you have no right to someone else's work?

          We have no right to somebody else's property. An artist's contribution to culture isn't his property, it's a part of the culture they contributed to.

          The fact is that we like to encourage this contribution by giving the artists certain rights to OUR property for a limited time. They're borrowing it from us, and we'd like it returned in a more reasonable time, please. If you don't like the rules, don't share your art with the world, keep it in your vault where only you can see it.

          • [citation needed]

            Artists work for a living. Their work is theirs. You seem to have this odd entitled notion that they are there for you. You are wrong. You are there for them.

            • [citation needed]

              Can you erase a song from your mind after you're done listening to it? Can you be absolutely sure that no work you do after seeing a painting will be influenced by what you've seen? Once you've been exposed to somebody's work, you're changed by it, if only by containing the memories you now possess. In time, this results in a shared language by people who have seen the work. When you watch Toy Story and you see Mr. Potato Head exclaim, "Hey, Look! I'm a Picasso!" you only understand that joke because h

              • Can you erase a song from your mind after you're done listening to it? Can you be absolutely sure that no work you do after seeing a painting will be influenced by what you've seen? Once you've been exposed to somebody's work, you're changed by it, if only by containing the memories you now possess. In time, this results in a shared language by people who have seen the work. When you watch Toy Story and you see Mr. Potato Head exclaim, "Hey, Look! I'm a Picasso!" you only understand that joke because his surrealist paintings are now part of our culture.

                No, but this doesn't grant you the right to torrent videos, music and games.

                It certainly opens up art for remixing, mashups, mods, reedits... But, beyond that? No, you're not entitled to media or art.

                So do I. I'm not guaranteed, nor do I have a right to make money off my career, though, I could be fired at any time, my skills could not be in demand. I may be forced to switch careers to make a living.

                No, it's not. But if you like a person's work, pay up and make sure they can afford to keep making art.

                I'm not necessarily going to bat here for mass media.. But a lot of my friends are artists, musicians, etc. If you want to enjoy their work, support them. Pay for their stuff. You have no right to just g

      • by tilante (2547392)
        How's it "impossible to create?" Leaving out the fact that they didn't purchase rights to the content they distributed, what they did was no different technologically than Netflix sending out those CDs that let you access their service from a Wii. They just used USB sticks and had it work on a PC instead. There's plenty of people providing legal versions of this -- Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc. They don't put their program on a USB stick, but that's because a "clientless" setup through a web browser is c
    • by wanzeo (1800058)

      So they were $99 dollars upfront for a USB key containing keys to access a website serving up copyright infringing media for an additional recurring $50 a month. If I remember correctly, AUD ~ USD.

      Even if you don't account for the problems of giving CC info to a shady site (say you use prepaid cards), that is still a lot of money to pay for access to copyrighted media. Isn't the whole point to not spend money? Who was their target market?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The fact that people are willing to pay this much should be a lesson to the copyright holders and content providers. The message is "we will pay for this service but until it becomes available we have to buy from criminals".

        The problem with creating a legal service to step into the shoes of this illegal service is the competition between the companies that are involved. Can you imagine the complexity of a deal involving all of the companies in the article? I would imagine that Apple would gladly provid

        • Apple aren't really relavent here, they were just using apple's brand to try and make themselves look more legit. I'm sure a legitimate service could find someone to license a brand off if they didn't feel like building their own.

          However as you allude to an equally good legitimate service cannot and will not happen (at least not without government intervention). The fundamental problem is that since licenses do cost money and some content owners are likely to either refuse outright or charge unreasonable ra

    • by 1u3hr (530656)
      Try http://dl.pps.tv/ [dl.pps.tv]

      Probably pretty much the same content, but this is free. Supposedly legal, but I wouldn't depend on that.

  • I am an investigator looking into a similar case. Where can I obtain one of these keys for forensic research?

    Please send to Computer Forensick Unlimited (CFU) Box 169, East Anyton, CA, USA

    Thanks!

  • The police in this case have stated that the customers of these USB keys (The list being compiled from information collected at the raid) will be persued by police and treated as “receivers of stolen property."

    I really want to see how that bullshit plays out in court.
    • by icebike (68054) *

      The police in this case have stated that the customers of these USB keys (The list being compiled from information collected at the raid) will be persued by police and treated as “receivers of stolen property."

      I really want to see how that bullshit plays out in court.

      Probably exactly as the police expect. You may have notices that the Australian Courts are even more on the
      side of big media than the US courts.

      • by mjwx (966435)

        The police in this case have stated that the customers of these USB keys (The list being compiled from information collected at the raid) will be persued by police and treated as “receivers of stolen property."

        I really want to see how that bullshit plays out in court.

        Probably exactly as the police expect. You may have notices that the Australian Courts are even more on the
        side of big media than the US courts.

        You dont live in Australia do you.

        Australian courts tend to side against big media. Feel free to look up AFACT vs iinet. [wikipedia.org]

        Now the NSW Police haven't said they will do anything against the customers, the law views them as victims of fraud. In order for them to be receivers of stolen goods they must have had prior knowledge the goods were stolen.

      • by mug funky (910186)

        citation needed.

    • by Whiteox (919863)

      Exactly. If they are paying for a monthly service (same price as Sat TV/month) + internet access, then how can they be guilty?
      The trouble is that all the good criminal lawyers in Oz are vacationing somewhere sunny and warm.
      Those Chinese users are heading for the slammer + fines + court costs.

  • Sounds like the only thing this guy is doing is violating Apple's trademark on their little apple icon.
    Where the subscription service gets its content from hasn't been revealed and the police probably don't even know yet. Unless this man runs the companies that supply that service, he isn't doing anything wrong. The Chinese company that streams the content is the entity that requires the licenses for the content they deliver.
  • most of the 1100 pirate TV channels likely are OTA but with OTA there is good stuff that can get like all the NFL games with out the added cost of NFL ST, WGN 9 (better for sports then wgn america).

    But I tried one of the underground web tv feeds then VS was pulled from directv and the PQ was not that good.

    • What good stuff is like an NFL game?

      <spoiler>
      The ending of the next NFL game:
      At least one, but not more than two, teams are going to walk off the field disappointed...
      </spoiler>

      • What good stuff is like an NFL game?

        For me, rooting for an NFL team is like rooting for one corporation to beat another. I find it very hard to care who wins, let alone find it interesting enough to watch.

        • by rednip (186217)

          For me, rooting for an NFL team is like rooting for one corporation to beat another.

          While I'll admit that once in a while I sometimes do enjoy watching football, the game is exactly a competition played by unionized workers between two corporations. What's really silly is that when teachers organize to help their members try to attain the middle class the GOP cries like they are trying to skin alive every tax payer, while the sport unions creates millionaires for throwing a ball around. That really does show 'the children' what sort of skills are valuable in our society.

  • And then another $50 a month??? How much more does the legit service cost?
    • by c0lo (1497653)

      How much more does the legit service cost?

      Example [foxtel.com.au]

      • Re:$100 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by grahamsaa (1287732) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @01:32AM (#38899999)
        This is an excellent example of why piracy is alive and well today. I occasionally get a call from my cable (internet) provider asking me if I'm interested in taking advantage of a special 'deal' to get cable TV access for around $65/month (for a limited time, of course). Each time I respond by saying "so, you've removed all the advertisements, then?"

        The person on the other end of the phone usually sounds confused until I explain that I will happily pay for content, but not so long as they try to treat me as the customer and the product at the same time. I _might_ pay $10/month for a full cable package with ads, and $50/month might be reasonable for 100% ad-free content, but anything like what the standard providers are charging for ad supported content is completely unthinkable. Until then, services like Hulu are a much better deal.

        And if content providers are too stupid to put their content up on those sites, I have no qualms pirating it. If I can't find a way to watch content cheaply or for free, I don't bother with that content at all. Big content -- adapt or die!
        • by Mista2 (1093071)

          All this proves there is a worldwide market for the content, at a reasonable price, and you can make mony off it if you dont treat your customers like criminals and DRM the content to death. It obviously isnt working anyway as this content is being copied and made available despite their best efforts at DRM.
          Just let me choose a providor who can get ALL content equally, and not be tied to an exclusive deal.
          Here in NZ, we've just started getting some new shows, all the ones canned after thier first season in

      • by AHuxley (892839)
        About A$170 (US $180) just for movies/multiroom http://www.foxtel.com.au/shop/packages/build-your-own/default.htm [foxtel.com.au] once you start to add your own "channel packages".
  • Terrible headline (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Swampash (1131503) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:50AM (#38899789)

    Come on Slashdot editors, you can do better than that. I suggest:

    "Apple Pirate Apple TV Apple Operation Apple Nabbed Apple In Apple Australia Apple"

    or maybe "Apple Apple Pirate Apple Apple Australia Apple Apple"

    or possibly even "Apple iPhone iPad iPod iMac Macbook Pro Macbook Air iTunes Steve Jobs Apple"

    Keep on spamming those keywords, you're improving the Internet for everyone!

  • Christ - I've heard enough chimps in LARGE_US_BANK where I work throw the word "forensic" around to the point where it has become meaningless, and this just proves it. They probably just mounted the thumbdrive and read some files on it.

    • forensic - a. Portmanteau of Foreign and Sick.
      "Get your damned forensic copyright legislation out of our country!"
  • by clickclickdrone (964164) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @08:39AM (#38901379)
    I'm amazed the whole thing was instigated by a Chinese company investigating piracy of their service/product. I thought they were the all time king's of ignoring other people's IP?

I have not yet begun to byte!

Working...