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.'"

Comments

I had the same attitude from EA..

[AlterRNow]

.. 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."

Re:Is USPS liable for mail fraud?

[sanosuke001]

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)

OSI model

[radarsat1]

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."

Re:As frightningly evil...

[siddesu]

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.

This guy is a CEO? He makes too much sense...

[Jonah Hex]

"They send us a list of IP addresses and say `this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say `well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say `you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'."

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.

He said another problem with this traffic is that is not on its network. "It is transiting our network along with the billions of other things passing across the network which are perfectly legal. We are not traffic cops. We can't stand in the middle of it and stop the individual items that might be against the law. These guys are asking us to be judge, jury and executioner," Malone said.

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.

"I think they genuinely believe that ISPs have a secret magic wand that we are hiding and if we bring it out we can make piracy disappear just by waving it. And it doesn't exist."

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

Re:Criminal intent?

[theaveng]

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).

Worse than you think

[dontmakemethink]

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.

Re:Worse than you think

[R4nneko]

That is because this case is unrelated to the filtering trial.

iiNet are being sued because they didn't do anything when the film companies sent them notices that some of their customers were pirating their media. They apparently sent 18 notices and iiNet refused to do anything because they were allegations rather than court ordered actions.

To be honest, this seems quite reasonable to me, iiNet should not have to cut people off just because someone says: That guy was pirating my stuff, here is an IP and a time. The companies should go after the individual, not the ISP.

Ultimately we will see what the federal courts decide. The media companies in question have stated that if this goes well, they will continue onto other Australian ISPs.

Re:Criminal intent?

[JasterBobaMereel]

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...