Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Muscles Aussie ISPs Over Movie Downloading
Tenaka Kahn writes "Whirlpool is reporting that American movie companies are using a company (MediaForce) to try and muscle Aussie ISPs into disconnecting users who indulge in movie sharing."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Proving once again that U.S. government and businesses recognize no boundaries, CNN (among others) carries tidings of U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson refusing to drop a copyright infringement suit against Kazaa owner Sharman Networks Ltd. (based in Austrailia, incorporated in Vanuatu) brought by the music (RIAA, no doubt) and movie (MPAA, also, no doubt) industries. Perhaps Sharman Networks spokeswoman, Kelly Larabee, should consider the fate of Manuel Noriega and how 21 million (where do they come up with these numbers?) americans are at risk of subversion by wanton music and movie swapping. Battle of the Coral
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
A company can not just barge into another country and demand their wants and rules be met. They have no legal clout, they filed no suit, it's as if someone from the next town over from where you live barges into your house and tells you to stop using your alarm clock to wake up in the morning because he created the alarm-buzzer noise.
If they cave though, then bullying becomes a legal and effective way of getting your way, and we're all screwed.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
Tracking by IP address is becoming more and more useless all the time. You can basically just wardrive around your neighborhood until you find an open network, and then download all your warez from there. Who will get in trouble? Not you!
Some people can even connect to other networks without leaving their own house (some California houses are really close together). You could even target someone to get in trouble just by using their open network (they might have thought they were being generous).
Sex - Find It
Every packet in the stream contains both the source and destination IP addresses. All they need to do is position themselves somewhere on the KaZaa (or other similiar network), what for the location of searches for files. I doubt that they actually check that files are being downloaded. They probably have problems telling exactly what is downloaded.
This is just bullying tactics. Piracy of all media has been around for so long and has been impossible to police. What makes RIAA and Time Warner etc believe that they can control it now. Shut down another file sharing network - that'll stop them - it worked when they shut down Napster. right?
Surely the funds they are pumping into this type of policing/checking (especially for the RIAA) would be much better of pushed towards the Artists.
Take a look here for a sample. This is what the ISP received, most likely.
Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
There really isn't anything that MediaForce can do. Their issue is with the user, not the ISP. I'm sure the ISP will be willing to answer any subpoena requests, but the idea of the ISP seriously thinking about disabling a customer because of one of these notices is silly.
Ask anyone who is in the right place at a big ISP. They'll tell you they get hundreds of these.
Adam
May I direct your attention to this page:3 06476/2 003-01-11/2003-01-17/2
http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/
The news are wrecking havoc over at Neowin.net a.t.m.
Basically, they infect your computer & sends back lists of your files to the RIAA.
prepare for karma burn...
australia still has copyright law, and ISPs still tend to protect themselves by stating in their TOS that users who use the service to break a law are subject to termination of service. the majority of "hollywood" (read: major studio productions) are protected by international copyright, thus making it entirely legal and right for the american studio to inform the australian ISP of a user on their system violating copyright.
it's just as if you contacted an australian ISP and informed them of a user sending out SPAM. would you not expect the ISP to repremant the user, if not disconnect them entirely?
of COURSE the studios have legal clout. it's basic, every day copyright. you run a distribution system for movies protected by international copyright, you are breaking the law. this is not personal use. this is not fair use. this is an illegal distribution meant to subvert payment. framing it as anything else destroys every good-natured and honest approach to legal reasons for allowing filesharing. when you lie, you make a better case for filesharing to be illegal.
Did any one catch that? First of all, it is unfortunate that they are considering to abide... but that is not the scary part. The scary part is that Australian ISPs are seeking legal advice to check whether US companies have any jurisdiction in Australia!!!!!. Naturally, there are few lawyers here, but isn't it obvious that regardless of how big or scary a company is, it has no jurisdiction outside of US. Nothing in US has jurisdiction outside of US (besides the army maybe...)
What if you had another reason to use those ports, a reason they don't know about.[?]
Well, you could either convince your admin to open the port to you, or buy your own connection. You're in college to learn - unfettered net access is not a requirement.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I've received two of these form letters from MediaForce, as well. As a network and security engineer at an ISP, it's my duty to make sure none of my lusers are violating any laws, but ALSO to ensure the privacy of my lusers.
I challenged the sender (Mark Weaver) in both instances to provide proof that the user was in fact sharing what they were being accused of, and asked how it was being shared (irc, p2p, etc). I never got a human response back. It seems they're just shooting blindly at users and their ISPs, hoping that the ISP will disconnect the "copyright infringer" without questioning MediaForce's (apparent) authority.
MediaForce has NO RIGHT AT ALL to tell ISPs to terminate a user's account for only an alleged copyright violation, especially if such allegations don't conflict with the ISP's acceptable-use-policy. Even if the AUP has a "do not break any laws" clause, no laws have been broken until a conviction is handed down.
I'd say it's completely safe to ignore the form letters these bastards are spewing forth. It's nothing more than a scare tactic, and perhaps just something to show their copyright-holding clients that they're actually working for whatever they're charging for the "service".
Max, the webspider monkey says "MediaForce Sucks!"
I actually like the decoys, and am surprised those here who profess to respect copyright don't also. Points:
It's not entrapment; the "victim" goes in with a predisposition to pilfer copyrighted music, and the gov't isn't involved anyway. Perhaps the victim could say they weren't aware the material was copyrighted, but really, they were saved from committing an offense. Wasted bandwidth? Direct consequence of the pirate's misdeed. Deception? Yes, and entirely legal, even just. The best argument against it is merely ethical, that the decoys are (maybe) interfering with fair use, if fair use can be stretched that far. Perhaps also the bogus files clog up the P2P network by spilling into legitimate searches, but I'd like to see evidence of it first.
It's a shame, really, that piracy has to break up things like Napster, and perhaps soon Kazaa et al. It ruins the fun for the rest of us and hobbles a promising technology. The pirates should be recognized as partners with industry in bringing these down. Without the infringement the industry would have nothing to take to court, eh?
So, load 'em up.
Go to a different school. That's about all you can do. Last time I checked, we still hadn't passed the Constitutional amendment that guarantees free and unfettered broadband internet access to all citizens regardless of race, religion, color, creed or P2P app. So, write your congress person today!
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I have no problem with the record/movie companies going after the users. Isn't that what the slashdot crowd has been crying all along? Don't go after the networks, go after the users? Hell, when people stop crowding my isp with nothing but illegal traffic, maybe my connection won't run like a pig?
What I do have a problem with is a bunch of arrogant american fuckwits, obviously blinded by the sunshine that comes out of their mate's asses, who think they have the right to force THEIR laws on others. Here's an idea assholes, if you're going to tell people in other countries how to run their god damn lives, take 5 minutes, 5 MINUTES to find the relevant australian law to go after them with.
Regardless of the legal arguments, some colleges don't have the bandwidth to support file sharing. It slows things down for anyone actually wanting to use the network for educational purposes.
I would have assumed that if MediaForce really wanted results they'll need to do more than make the copyrighty infringer move to a new ISP.
What have the achieved by making the ISP close the users account? Inconvenience? Not a whole lot more.
Now, if MediaForce forgot about bothering ISP's and went after the actual people who infringed on the copyright then they might be actually doing something which will bring them closer to their Ultimate Goal.
technically, when one participates in a P2P network such as FastTrack, they're still not violating copyright law.
Here's the point I want to make in a nutshell, and argue about it as you will:
nobody is violating copyright laws by simply "sharing" files. The only copyright infringers are the ones who download shared files without owning a license to those copyrighted works.
In other words, in order to break the law, one must download a copyrighted, non-free file that you don't have the rights to use. When the RIAA or MPAA claims you are breaking the law, they are bluffing - they have no way to ascertain whether you've actually got a license to use the files you share, and they have no idea whether you're downloading files which you don't have rights to.
Note that this whole argument took place many years ago when the VCR first came into popular use.
An ISP should not take action based on an unsubstantiated e-mail from some unkown entity who claims to have some authority.
These buffoons in their airconditioned offices with their window views are going to have to put in a full days work to make a difference here.
Any ISP worth their salt will not give these people any personal details. They will also know that they cannot take action against the user without some proof or some order from a local authority.
If Media Force wants to get into Australia they are going to have to stop sending worthless e-mail s and speak to local Australian law enforcement. Learn local laws and try and take this to offenders properly.
In reality they won't do that. They are going to just sit back and send their worthless e-mails and collect their fat cheques from Warner etc. No big days work coming out of Media Force, I'll wager.
The good news is that at some point the Record mafia will realise how inneffective these stupid upstart companies are and will drop them.
They will go broke and hopefully go back to loan sharking or selling snake oil.
technically, when one participates in a P2P network such as FastTrack, they're still not violating copyright law.
Here's the point I want to make in a nutshell, and argue about it as you will:
nobody is violating copyright laws by simply "sharing" files. The only copyright infringers are the ones who download shared files without owning a license to those copyrighted works.
In other words, in order to break the law, one must download a copyrighted, non-free file that you don't have the rights to use. When the RIAA or MPAA claims you are breaking the law, they are bluffing - they have no way to ascertain whether you've actually got a license to use the files you share, and they have no idea whether you're downloading files which you don't have rights to.
The only way this could possibly be true is if you have the right to distribute the material, which you don't. Owning an MP3 can be perfectly legal, provided you own the CD and ripped it yourself. But that in no way implies you have the right to distribute that MP3 to anyone else. It is legal for you to have an play, but illegal for you to distribute to other people, even if you believe they own the CD, since it was determine all MP3s aren;t equal, you only legally are entitled to the MP3s ripped directly from your CD. So in essense, the law is being broken twice. Once by the person downloading the material, but also by the person distributing material they have no right to distribute.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I can't imagine anything possible that more opens the door to this abuse of one country by another then that decision, which has now also been mirrored by the California court allowing KaZaa's Australian owners to be sued in the Golden State.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."