Slashdot Mirror
Studios Sue Oz ISP Over Allowing Piracy
Da Massive writes "Leading Hollywood film studios Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Disney Enterprises are suing Australia's second largest ISP, iiNet, saying it's complicit in the infringement of their copyrighted material. According to a statement of claim, 'the ISP knows that there are a large number of customers who are engaging in continuing infringements of copyright by using BitTorrent file sharing technology.'"
When will shoe stores get sued for selling boots and shoes that are painful to the person receiving kicks in the ass?
Gotta remember though, they're starting in Australia, which is a good idea considering their government's attitude on the internet and the freedoms provided therein. Interesting to me that they've started there. If it works there and the government buys into it, then look for it to spread to the other overly conservative nations. (I'm looking at you Russia)
You'll have that sometimes...
.. when I asked them how I could make back-ups of my games so I don't have to cause damage to the originals to install them ( some 20 odd CDs for 'The Sims 2' ). They told me I couldn't because, and I quote:
"You cannot create backup copies of the discs because this would allow a person to freely distribute copies of the game, which is something EA does not allow."
My reply was similar to some other posts here:
"I have no intention in distributing the copies, I merely wish to protect my investment by not using the original discs and therefore reduce the chance of damage to them. Denying me the ability to do that based on the _possibility_ that it can be used illegally is unfair and unjust.
By the reasoning you have displayed, knives are not permitted to be sold as they can be used to injure or kill someone ( which the law does not allow ), along with plastic bags, rope, water, scissors and plenty of other items you can find in any house. However, this is not the case."
In this case, it is "You are providing a service which allows people to do naughty things amongst other, legitimate activities. We are going to sue you."
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
It's only a matter of time. It will happen first in the countries who's current laws and governments make it most likely to succeed. The rest of the world will follow in due course.
Oh no... it's the future.
The plaintiffs in this case need to lose bad. If they win then they control the Internet - which may be what they want, but not what the rest of us want.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They are liable as long as they are considered a content provider.
As soon as the ISP's started filtering traffic they didn't like and affecting what data is on their network, they became content providers and could not ask for immunity. If they were to stop filtering/blocking/etc what goes over their tubes, they could probably ask to not be considered a content provider and then what happens on their tubes is not their fault; they would be just offering a service.
(This is how I see the US working; AU might be a tad different)
-SaNo
It would be in the ISP's best interests to stick to layer 3, forwarding IP packets. As soon as you start analysing and filtering them, you're doing a lot more than just being a service provider. The latest trends of demanding packet inspection and performing traffic-based throttling are really destroying the classic model of networking that the internet is based on. It's got to stop, or we'll have something that just isn't recognizable as "the internet" any longer.
If they're smart, they'll just say that inspecting traffic and disallowing certain types of packets is not in their business plan, and they don't have the capability or reason to do it. Otherwise they'll open themselves up to a lot more lawsuits down the road, from both sides of the fence. They'll find themselves having to bend over again and again for anyone asking them for pretty much anything. Instead, the right answer is, "we just forward IP packets, we don't piece them together or look at what they contain."
As frighteningly scary this copyright violation behavior we hear about all the time is, all those corporate scumbags who have for years been pushing for the privatization of culture and are step by step chipping at the rights of societies worldwide to enjoy the public domain (which is the fix for the economic damage the copyright monopoly inflicts in the short run) provided themselves the fertile ground for these violations by not adapting to new technologies, and ripping off the customers as hard as they could.
so, there you go.
They don't do business with me anymore... They probably chalk it up to piracy though.
Excellent synopsis and way to deal with allegations, as we've all heard exactly how often they get these things wrong. If there is an allegation of a crime it's up to the police to properly collect evidence and give it to the prosecutor's office, or the equivalent thereof in local terms.
And just like the Pr0n filters the government seems to be forcing on the public over in that section of the globe, it is completely unfeasible for a common carrier to even attempt this sort of thing. I would be completely pissed if I was blocked from accessing anything on the net. If a site is illegal then take it down, but don't try and filter what comes through my pipeline.
An attitude all to prevalent among non-techies, that throwing a few filters in place will magically fix things. Unfortunately I run into this all the time, and no amount of rational explanation makes their attitude change. Some times you have to implement the wrong solution while documenting what the right one should be, then go back and do it correctly for twice the cost.
Note: Cleaned up " ` ' in original quote to display correctly instead of in codes.
HEX
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Because other companies HAVE embraced the technology, and people are still pirating it away.
I mean, Netflix on Demand, Blockbuster via mail, Netflix via mail, etc.
It's not that it's so much harder, it's that the economy sucks, we have a bunch of wannabe rich people driving around in 80 thousand dollar cars that can't afford them, pinned the cost on the interest in their house, and now we have BIG problems dealing with that.
They DON'T HAVE the money to go out. The current generation thinks everything should be free (to them, at least). Their is no difference in bittorrent for legal and illegal use, etc., etc., etc.
People don't WANT to pay, and enough lames figured out how to use BitTorrent.
No distro groups are using bittorrent, they still use encrypted FTP. Bittorrent is for the lames without FTP leech accounts.. Read that last statement as "for the masses who have no technical skills or anything else to add to 'the scene'".
That's the problem with your statements... They are completely ignorant. Look at the current economy, and tell me we have a bunch of people in the USA that WANT to pay their own way.
--Toll_Free
We're not talking about copying laws, we're talking about filing lawsuits, do try to pay attention. Obviously it makes sense for the studios to file such suits in the countries where they are most likely to succeed first, before filing in other countries.
Oh no... it's the future.
When I needed AdAware to remove a nasty spybot, my bittorrent client was the only thing that worked (because the spybot was blocking browser downloads).
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
bittorent isnt evil. in fact, one could argue it's more efficient and cost effective than stamping disc after disc of 'i am legend' and 'happy feet' into a holographic, 3d box, which is then encased in a plastic alarm, which is then tagged with a theft sticker but not before being shrink-wrapped. all this is then whored up with stickers and its own display case the size of a lawn tractor trucked into thousands of walmarts.
fundamentally the concept of a movie must change. it cant be something thats administered in a controlled fashion like morphine, the technology has made that model obsolete. lowering the cost of a DVD to $12 doesnt work either, because the media available online is still free. if you're going up against free, you'd better come out with a stellar product or go home.
the only solution is to accept that either the reign of the film tycoon is over and moving pictures have been forced back into an artform, or embrace online technology and advances like CGI at their actual cost...not pixar's billion-dollar markup.
the whole goddamned film 'industry' is a conglomerate of artificiality, and im afraid the only ones to be stunned by the real prices of their 'art' are ironically the industry members themselves.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Why are you treating economic theory like it's a passage from the bible, an absolute truth that can't be questioned.
According to your theory noone would ever pay money to charity because noone is forcing them to through draconian laws.
I have 4 different games I have to patch for my nephews,all the patches come from BT. All of the copies of OO.o I have downloaded in the last 3 years or so has come BT. All of my FOSS comes by BT. So the "magic pirate tool" argument really doesn't hold. Besides,isn't Oz the place where they have some of the shittiest caps on the planet? Are you telling me that with those itty bitty caps the *.A.As are STILL going to bitch? Give me a freaking break!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The government for financing roads that are used for shipping pirate DVDs, and the phone companies for allowing the conversations between the buyers and sellers of the illicit product.
Oh yeah, and the car manufacturers for the vehicles used for transportation of the goods, and the oil companies for the fuel ...
Just curious, but why do you say that about Russia? From everything I've seen, they have no intention of rolling over to Anglo-American dominated interests.
My understanding is that the Georgian stuff did away with a lot of potential for cooperation.
I'm not saying that a situation like trading allofmp3 for the WTO couldn't happen again, just that I don't see it as likely. You have something particular in mind?
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
We'd pay to see stuff at the cinema, and own it on DVD / Blu-Ray if they'd just stop suing everybody they can find and put the money into funding good script writers and directors.
So, by your theory, people only take stuff for free if it is crappy stuff?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
wait, iiNet wasn't the one actually experimenting the new Australian filtering technology? This lawsuit is a HUGE win against such filtering protection... or not? Am I missing something?
Yes, it is an indicator that iiNet is opposed to internet content filtering. However, it's also an indicator to all ISP's around the world that if they do not employ filtering they risk an extremely expensive legal battle with the seven top film studios, each of which probably has more assets and prior experience in court than the ISP's.
What's strange and rather scary about this situation is that "iiNet will be participating in the trials, mostly to prove that the filters are impractical, unworkable and unwanted." [see link above] The studios are suing them not for refusing to cooperate, but for cooperating reluctantly. That's all it takes for the MAFIAA to pull the trigger it seems.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
If someone today said that they could find a way of making money by giving away something broadcasting it across the planet on TV and on the net and still make people pay for it they would laughed at but this is exactly what the media companies do ...
I can pay to watch a movie, buy it on DVD, watch it on free to view TV, and it is still illegal for me to download it and watch that? I've paid twice to watch it and a company has paid you to broadcast it ... why do you still want money for it...?
Copyright is being used as a licence to print money forever by these companies...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
I wonder if it's possible to sue them for misadvertising their products.
If I pay £15 for a DVD on which there is an anti-piracy advert that I have to sit through but can download a copy of the DVD free of charge from the Internet without the advert on it, then the assumption is that I am actually paying £15 for the advert, not the movie.
And since the advert is never stated on the box as being present on the DVD at the point I buy it, then quite clearly I am getting a different product for my money than the one I thought I was paying for.
And that surely comes under the UK Sale Of Goods Act as well as other consumer protection laws in other parts of the world that entitles you to a full refund if something is not sold as advertised.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
What they are doing here is attempting to demon straight a need for the great firewall.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
It's oh so easy to see why they picked iinet.
They're trialling the govt's net filter - only to prove that it doesnt work.
By suing iinet, they're effectively lobbying the govt to include warez in the filter.
Soon, we'll have a safe list of www sites on port 80 only.