Studios' Oz Power-Grab Revealed

Xiroth writes "More details are beginning to come out about the lawsuit launched by film studios in Australia. According to law experts familiar with the case, the studios seek to force the ISPs to become 'police, judge, and executioner,' effectively giving the studios the legal clout to switch off ISP customers' internet connection at will. Apparently the ISP iiNet is the unlucky victim for the test case as, unlike other ISPs, they refused to pass on infringement notices to their customers."

Comments

Glad someone's fighting

[MoonBuggy]

I'm liking the sound of these iiNet people - they were the ones who wanted to say a big 'screw you' to the proposed government censorship scheme, too. Any Aussies care to comment on whether they're actually the good guys or not?

Re:Glad someone's fighting

[StikyPad]

I'm not an Aussie, but I think it's unproductive (and often counter-productive) to try to label companies or people as "good" or "bad." This particular action appears to be good. Nuff said.

Re:Glad someone's fighting

[quinks]

Internode and iiNet are the two awesome ISPs in this country, although there are lots of smaller ones. You'll want to avoid the ISPs that charge $180/GB on any of their plans for excess usage such as Telstra, Dodo or Optus. This is not a typo. That's 180 Australian Dollars for every Gigabyte you go over your allowance. For example, Optus's 'Yes Fusion $79 plan comes with 4 GB and $150 for every Gigabyte over that. Needless to say, they've got their had stuck up so far their own bottom that they can see daylight through their own ears. But even they completely oppose the plan.

A certain Mark Newton who works for Internode is also an extremely outspoken critic of the censorship plan. But Telstra, iiNet and Internode, likely 3 out of the biggest 5 ISPs all have important people saying that the filtering won't work.

Broadband Choice is an excellent overview of the choices out there. Check out Whirlpool if you want to know more about the situation.

Re:Glad someone's fighting

[emil10001]

You don't think 'good' and 'bad' are helpful adjectives to describe a company to a friend who might be interesting in purchasing services from said company and who will eventually need to deal with said company?

Two examples, Comcast and Netlix. I've read quite a bit actions that both companies have taken, and have been on the phone with both companies several times. If I were referring a friend for a high-speed internet service, I probably wouldn't recommend Comcast because I think that they are a 'bad' company. They do things like throttle your internet connection if you're using bit-torrent, regardless if it's for completely legal purposes or not. They are lobbying for a tiered internet. They are rarely pleasant or on time to service calls, and calling their customer service center is an exercise in futility.

Netflix, on the other hand, I would recommend as a 'good' company, because they are constantly doing things that bennefit their customers. For example, they have been working very hard to bring streaming movies to people. I just got that ability with the latest xbox update, and it's awesome (really good quality too). They are also very good on the phone. The CSRs will really try to help you, and if you have some sort of technical question, they put you on the phone with somebody who understands and can answer your question!

So, in short, I think that labeling companies as 'good' and 'bad' is helpful. If a company is falling into the 'bad' category, and they don't want to be there, then they need to get off their ass and figure out what put them there.

Re:Glad someone's fighting

[MobyDisk]

It's kind of like the Borg:

The individuals who joined the collective weren't really evil people. The Borg will assimilate anyone. But once they become part of the collective mindset, they have one goal, and that goal can really only be achieved in an evil way.

Corporations tend to work the same way. Most of the individuals are not evil, but they contribute toward a whole that is going in an evil direction. Some time it is tough to take a step back and go "if I do this, they could use it for something else..." I always wonder who was the jerk who wrote the "virus" that went on the Sony BMG music CD's that disabled the ability to burn CDs as a form of copy protection. Surely that person knew what he/she was doing was wrong. But in other cases it is more gray. The same tools can be used for good or evil. And if evil makes you more profit, well.. that is what happens.

The only reason I see to oppose this

[MikeRT]

Is that if they have enough evidence to make you get shut off the net, they have enough evidence to sue you. Stop passing the buck and file a lawsuit, jackasses.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wild leap of logic

[$RANDOMLUSER]

They claim iiNet authorised copyright infringement by failing to prevent its users from downloading pirated movies and TV shows.

So I guess this means that the Jews (and the Catholic Church and the Masons) really were responsible for 9/11 - after all, they failed to prevent it.

Re:Even Wilder leap of logic

[$RANDOMLUSER]

So an eyewitness is as guilty as the perpetrator?
So General Motors and their dealerships are responsible for thousands of instances of vehicular manslaughter?

I'm sorry, I don't think I like "authorized by failing to prevent" as a legal precedence.

Oz?

[Theaetetus]

Can we please stop using the term "Oz" to refer to Australia, particularly in the context of film studios? There is an "Oz" series, which could lead to confusion, and someone searching for stories about Australia is unlikely to include "Oz" in their search.

Because they're fighting back.

[Xenographic]

> What I'm wondering is why iiNet is the *only* ISP getting sued.

Because they stood up to the studios. Rather than kicking people offline, they forwarded the complaints to the cops because they had no intention of pretending to be policemen.

The summary is inaccurate on that point: they did NOT ignore the complaints. In fact, there are police in the same building as them, so they forwarded all those complaints over to them. The fact that the police did nothing is another matter, but perfectly understandable given the kind of "evidence" they're usually supplied with, especially when there are more important crimes to prosecute.

Anyhow, the studios obviously want to make an example out of the only ISP who isn't willing to play along with their power grabs in order to convince the others to be more compliant.