Slashdot Mirror
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."
Google Cache
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
We don't see that because the DMCA limit's ISPs of liability.
Massive networking attempt for friends
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.
If the ISP hosts, say, an Al Qaeda site, can they then be held responsible for "profiting" from terrorism?
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.
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.
"Smoking helps you lose weight - one lung at a time" -- A. E. Neumann
ARIA = Australian Recording Industry Association (or words to that effect)
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I'm sueing my city for building a road that allowed the thief who stole my car to get away.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
But look: "[Com-cen] stands to benefit economically from the increased consumption of bandwidth that would result from an increase in the flow of traffic to the Web site and an increase in the number of sound recordings downloaded by visitors to the Web site due to the large size of music files" Does that sound like direct profitability to you? IMHO, this sounds more like an attempt by Aussie media giants to sue left and right, not unlike similar examples we have seen in the US (case: suing 12 year olds who live in housing projects)
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.
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
Auto manufacturers profit when their cars are bought by drug dealers for the purpose of smuggling drugs. Handgun makers profit when someone buys their gun and uses it in a murder. Gardening stores profit when a customer buys large quantities of fertilizer, makes a bomb, and blows up large federal buildings in Oklahoma City.
Should the auto manufacturer, handgun maker, and gardening store be legally liable for the crimes of their customers? Should they even be responsible for following their customers around to make sure they do nothing illegal?
Well I suspect it had something to do with free trade agreement with the US. There is always a price to pay, I guess the Aussie government thought access to the biggest market was worth it.
that's it's one thing to be an individual downloading music and stuff, and another being a commercial entity profitting from piracy.
If Aussie ISPs stop file sharing does this mean now I will have to pay for all the beautiful Rolf Harris tunes? Or will I need to order my Didgerydoodoo music through A&B sound? Mate its gettin' hard to get good music anymore!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I once bought a pirated CD in a pub, can the landlord be sued?
Actually, thinking further... if I didn't work then I couldn't afford to buy the pirate CD so surely my employer is ultimately responsible, after all they gave me the money to commit this foul act... I'm going to sue my employer for making me a criminal!!!
Or, should I quit my job, become unemployed, claim state benefits, buy a pirate CD and then sue the government?!?!?
When will people learn, the internet is neither inherently good nor evil... it's just a new medium... if kids weren't inside on their PC's pirating CD's they'd be out in the playground trading CDR's stuffed full of music... you gonna sue the school at that point?
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.
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
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?
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.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
The American backlash against the filesharing suits seems to be gaining steam (Stop RIAA Lawsuits Coalition), I wonder if the same will start happening down under as they crack down.
At some point, there needs to be a global citizen response to a global entertainment industry. The corporations are using all the tactics they have available in each country and consumers should do the same. The laws they're trying to cram into the FTAA are on a new level.
"The draft intellectual property rights chapter in the FTAA Agreement vastly expands criminal procedures and penalties against intellectual property infringements throughout the Americas... One clause would require countries to send non-commercial infringers such as Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharers to prison. It is estimated that 60 million Americans use file-sharing software in the US alone." -From a new report by ipjustice.org.
I think Harlan Ellison did it first. Harlan sued AOL over posts of his copyrighted material to Usenet.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
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.
Tough luck! Sell up and move on to a new career. The general population has been told for long enough that they "own" the music they buy.
"Sorry Son, you scratched the record, you'll have to buy it again for full price - no discounts for scratches or breaks"
"Sorry Son, you may have bought the vinyl twice, the cassette and the 8 track, but that doesn't entitle you to a discount on the CD"
"Sorry Son, you melted the CD when you left it on the dash of your car, you'll have to buy it again for full price - no discounts for melted CDs. "
If we had bought a media licence then a new physical copy should come at a massive discount. You just try getting a new media for your melted CD!!
Next they are told that music is free - because it doesn't cost anything to listen to the radio (to the end user anyway).
And finally they know music is free because it costs them nothing (practically nothing - they pay for their internet connection and blank media) to download over the internet.
People are saying that they don't rightly care if it puts musicians out of jobs, or that they get no new music because there's no profit motive to make it. They just don't give a shit.
There's no "profit motive" for many jobs that people do. There are plenty of jobs that give a living wage, but put the worker under great stress and even danger to their own lives. Nobody gets filthy rich being a public school teacher, but they do it anyway.
Who want's to work hard all day and sit down to some relaxing music and see the frivolent lifestyle of the person who made it. To ignore the "class" issue behind the copying of music is wrong.
And best of all, nusic now costs practically nothing to make! A home studio can be bought for little more than the computer it runs on, and the abundance of free music distributed over the internet by such creative people who go this route shows that there doesn't need to be a profit motive to make music.
Basically - music is free, it costs bugger all to make, doesn't need a profit motive, and who wants to support the lifestyles of the rich and famous anyway?
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Copying songs isn't the subject of the music industry law suits. Distrubiting copyrighted material by allowing others to make a coppies of material that you are offering is.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
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?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney