Slashdot Mirror
AU Legal Group Says ISP Allowed 100K Illegal Downloads
In Australia, a court wrapped up day one of what promises to be a 4-week trial of media interests against ISP iiNet. Reader bennyboy64 writes "iTnews reports that Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft investigators claim to have recorded almost 100,000 instances of Australian internet service provider iiNet users making available online unauthorized copies of films and TV programs, lawyers for the film industry said in the Federal Court in Sydney today. The lawyers for the film industry claimed iiNet had done 'nothing' to discourage copyright infringement on its network. iTnews also has a background piece on the case, with a Flash-y graph."
Yes, they did. So did I. But htere's a legal distinction between "allow" and "authorise", something AFACT appears to be doing its best to ignore.
that they weren't required to do!
Time for me to sue someone for not giving me money!
Saddle up, we're going to Australia!
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
This just in! A group of car insurance companies just sued several state governments because they have allowed drivers to operate vehicles at unauthorized speeds, which led to accidents and higher insurance costs! Insurance companies know this because bicyclists have been watching how fast cars go, and they go way too fast!
Wait a minute, you can actually prove tangible losses from people speeding. That would make this lawsuit a little more feasible than what AFACT wants.
From what I gather, BT neither discourages or is expected to discourage the use of their phone network for things like buying controlled substances and arranging burglaries. That's normally left up to the police.
So the argument here is that the ISP is liable for illegal content exchange. What about the router manufacturer? How about the OS manufacturer? If the traffic was all encrypted, is the ISP on the hook for man-in-the-middle attacks to decrypt and inspect the content, or will they then be liable for invasion of privacy? Is there such a thing as privacy down under?
What's more is there's a kiwi group of 10 thousand artists against NZFACT because they're sick of being misrepresented. here's their press release tearing into NZFacT.
This just in! The telephone companies do nothing to prevent people from discussing crimes on the phone! Spray can manufacturers do nothing to prevent people from doing illegal graffitis! Sock manufacturers do nothing to keep people from kicking each other's asses!
The lawyers for the film industry claimed iiNet had done 'nothing' to discourage copyright infringement on its network.
I don't understand. Are your telecom providers forced to actively discourage illegal phone calls, such as bomb threats or sexual harassment? Are your book dealers forced to actively discourage photocopying of books? Are your radiostations forced to discourage people from turning on their radios in public locations without paying STIM? Are your pastry bakers forced to discourage people from throwing cakes at eachother?
Australia, help us understand your line of thought.
I am the lawn!
Personally I'd rather know as soon as possible so I could either refute the claims, take measures to avoid future detection or stop the behaviour that caused it..
By "stop the behaviour" you mean stand up and contest the corruption of your legal system which leads to these sort of lawsuits, right?
As an internet provider it's kind of a pain in the ass to police the entire internet. It's not at all difficult to refuse to serve a problematic customer. Like the one that keeps demanding that you police the entire internet. You see where I'm going with this?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This isn't the first time they've gone to court to protect the rights of its customers, and they are the only ISP down under who is (vocally) opposed to the government's "kiddy porn" filter.
This is precisely the reason why I have stuck with iiNet for over 10 years. They don't give a shit what I do with my bandwith, and use the money I pay them for it to invest in improving their network (and my service).
You would almost think that their job was moving bits around or something. The nerve!
Or together with shoes they can be used by people meeting up to plan or commit a crime.
Nike has been abusing this knowledge for years to sell shoe/sock combinations that allow criminals to flee crime scenes at unprecedented speeds!
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Anthrax is sent through the post, we don't blame the Post Office.
Death threats are sent through the telephone, we don't blame the Telephone Company.
People commit suicide on the railway, we don't blame the Train Company.
While all these things are prevented, or avoided, where possible, it is not the responsibility of the company to decide what an individual does, nor to take the blame when they do it.
Now apply this logic to ISP and a user downloading something, possibly legal, possibly illegal. (If it's inside a passworded RAR file, who the hell knows which is which anyway).
You can't shoot the messenger because the message he delivers says something you don't like.
Media Industry want ISPs to be their police, because they can't find an effective way of doing it themselves. If policing doesn't work, hell let't just blame the police because
there are so many criminals.
What planet do these Media Industry people live on ?
Their sales model is dead, it is no longer an "Industry" as they don't need to make anything anymore. Just whack out the latest clone remake of some decent 70's / 80's movie, and offer DRM free downloads for $1 ...
"I'd buy that for a dollar !!!".
Interesting you should make that observation.
The GP was wrong. Montana never had no speed limit (except, technically, for a short period of time between the court decision and legislative action referenced in the next paragraph). They simply said you could drive as fast as you wanted as long as you stayed "reasonable and prudent". In many jurisdictions, the traffic court judges interpreted that to mean "Don't even think about writing a ticket for anyone going less than a hundred." Nobody, however, would have batted at eye at writing up a semi-trailer for traveling at 90mph. It's not safe.
The Montana situation fell apart when an edge case cropped up. A driver was ticketed for doing 90 mph, was convicted, and appealed. He prevailed at the state supreme court level because the court held that the a speed limit law that only specifed "reasonable and prudent" was simply too vague to be constitutional. The state responded by setting speed limits.