Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian ISP Argues For BitTorrent Users

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the potential-for-more-harm-than-good dept.

taucross writes "Australian ISP iiNet is making a very bold move. They are asking the court to accept that essentially, BitTorrent cannot be used to distribute pirated content because a packet does not represent a substantial portion of the infringing material. They are also hedging their bets purely on the strength of the movie studios' 'forensic' evidence. This ruling will go straight to the heart of Australia's copyright law. At last, an ISP willing to stand up for its customers! Let's hope we have a technically-informed judge."

2 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Lets hope they win, but how is important too by ancientt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cobden for iiNet - "You aren't the boss of me"
    Bannon for Studios - "We told them to stop letting people do bad things, and they didn't do what we told them!"

    Apparently there is speculation over whether iiNet will try to argue that packets of data are not a substantial portion of a work, or maybe that the one to one nature of bittorrent isn't the same as a public dissemination, but personally I hope that they establish first that the studios don't have a right to just shut people down by accusation and then argue the technicalities that might get them off. I think that the arguments that it isn't piracy are much weaker than the arguments that the Studio's lawyers do not representive a duely appointed government representative.

    --
    B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
  2. Re:Objectivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a big difference here that you are missing .....

    They are not arguing for the individual users. They are arguing for Bittorrent.

    As an analogy, you can use Xerox copy machines to photocopy an entire book. The RIAA, MPAA, and so forth have in effect been going after Xerox for copyright infringement. The single act of copying a single page does not constitute copyright infringement while copying an entire book does.

    Thus the copyright infringement occurs through the actions of the user not the actions of the company who built the copy machine or the software used to transmit a file. Similarly, Ford, Chevy, Ferrari, Porsche, are not sued when someone speeds, crashes and hurts someone. The driver is at fault not the auto companies.