Aussie Music Industry Sues ISP Over Filesharing

An anonymous reader writes "In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the world, the Australian music industry has listed an Internet service provider (ISP) as a respondent in a court case involving music piracy. The ISP is being sued for 'profiting' (by hosting it) from a site which distributes copyright-infringing material."

Comments

DMCA

[Avsen]

We don't see that because the DMCA limit's ISPs of liability.

Sounds like what My old isp was doing.

[headbulb]

But they had it in the Private IP address space... Yes they natted me. (wisp) They never advertised That They did have it. They had divx movies, divx tv shows, and Mp3's. They even had software, I got msn office off it.. (Yes I warezed it, Now I don't have it installed I use OpenOffice. In fact I deleted it)

Did this isp advertise they had it?

I can't read the article since It seems to be slashdoted.. (ZDnet?)

Does anyone else's isp Do such a thing. Just wondering.

Question

[ArbiterOne]

If the ISP hosts, say, an Al Qaeda site, can they then be held responsible for "profiting" from terrorism?

Who is surprised?

[jam244]

With all the publicity pumped up by the RIAA and the MPAA, is it any surprise that media companies around the world would start to do the same?

Still, I'm not sure I agree that the ISP is "profiting" from the hosting of copyrighted material on one of its user's homepages. It may be allowing it, but there's no commercial gain whatsoever.

Re:I own a record store.

[Unominous Coward]

The primary reason why CD sales has dropped is not about cost. I'm sure even teenagers would be prepared to spring the $1 or two to buy the few songs that they really like.

It comes down to convenience. They want instant gratification, and P2P file sharing lets them have it.

Online music services will change this in the near future, though.

RMS said it best

[little1973]

I have read many comments on /. about copyright, pro and contra, but I think RMS hit the nail on its head with his Reevaluating Copyright:

The copyright system developed along with the printing press. In the age of the printing press, it was unfeasible for an ordinary reader to copy a book. Copying a book required a printing press, and ordinary readers did not have one. What's more, copying in this way was absurdly expensive unless many copies were made--which means, in effect, that only a publisher could copy a book economically.

So when the public traded to publishers the freedom to copy books, they were selling something which they *could not use*. Trading something you cannot use for something useful and helpful is always good deal. Therefore, copyright was uncontroversial in the age of the printing press, precisely because it did not restrict anything the reading public might commonly do.

But the age of the printing press is gradually ending. The xerox machine and the audio and video tape began the change; digital information technology brings it to fruition. These advances make it possible for ordinary people, not just publishers with specialized equipment, to copy. And they do!

I think the musicians have to perform live as they had to do a hundred years ago and as many musicians have to do now (except the so called stars). The era to become rich by selling millions of CDs without any real work is over.

Re:RMS said it best

[pubjames]

Consider that for most musicians the motivation to make music is to make money.

Is it? I doubt it. I know quite a few musicians, and I can't think of a single one that does it "for the money". Most off them would almost certainly be better off financially doing something else.

However, I expect many people in "the music industry", i.e. record company executives, do do it just "for the money". Which is sad.

proves...

[mantera]

that's it's one thing to be an individual downloading music and stuff, and another being a commercial entity profitting from piracy.

Mmm - Telstra

[tqft]

I want ARIA to try and sue Telstra/BigPond for profiting from supply of the underlying capacity, and knowingly allowing their users to file swap.

Who would win? (Googlefight predicts aria, but maybe becuase fo their big award ceremony last night)

PS: Telstra has been close to "busted" before for tapping phones of customers who complained about them. So don't think they are a bunch of wimps who woould not fight.

What if I play a song over the phone?

[reynolds_john]

I was just wondering... based on the logic being presented by the plaintiffs, would AT&T be held responsible in court if I played my MP3s to friends over the phone while they listened in a giant conference call?

Implicit marketing of piracy?

[Empiric]

I was a little taken aback earlier tonight when I was shopping in a Target, and among their selection of CD-R and writable media, was an image of a teenage girl, with a quiet smile on her face, with the caption "They call me Mixtape Molly".

Presumably, Target understands that these mixtapes are most likely to be mixes of copyrighted material. It was a little odd seeing what seemed like a subtle marketing piece for a substantial market for CD-R's, but which presumably had illegal activity underpinning it, presented by one of the biggest and most highly-regarded retail chains.

I think the collision between companies purportedly harmed by piracy and those benefitting from it is going to be a lot more widespread than the mentioned case, soon. It has become a mainstream cultural phenomenon.

Not guilty, but...

[StoneCrusher]

While I don't agree that ISP's are responsible for what their subscribers do, they don't exactly discourage piracy.

Sure there are clauses in the Terms and Conditions when you sign up, but some ISP's will advertise how many MP3's you can download in there usage caps. Sure it could be for legitimate MP3s, but really, what do you expect a user to do if there told they could download 300 MP3's a month! on the [X] plan.

Next Step:

[El]

Sue the syringe manufactures for "profiting from the proliferation of drugs." Then sue prisons for "profiting from the proliferation of crime." Next, sue abortion clinics for "profiting from the proliferation of rape." Later, sue CDROM manufacturers, CD burner manufacturers, and MP3 player manufacturers for "profiting from the proliferation of online music"! Where does it all stop?