In AU, Film Studios Issue Ultimatum To ISPs

bennyboy64 writes "The Australian court case between the film industry and ISP iiNet drew to a close yesterday after the film studios issued an ultimatum: Take copyright responsibilities seriously or leave the industry. 'Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business.' iTnews has done a short one minute interview with iiNet's CEO Michael Malone as he left the court on the final day. Also on the final day, the judge dismissed the Internet Industry Association's involvement in the case."

Comments

Oh really?

[TheRealMindChild]

'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business.'

Next stop, having DVD-Recorders and VCRs removed from the shelves of your local super store... you know... for providing a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes.

Re:Oh really?

[sopssa]

To be fair, they aren't asking to stop providing internet. They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility. It is not ISP's responsibility to monitor for such activity, but they should deal with copyright notices when they are send one. Of course, IMO it should be courts decision.

But if we're going for analogies, lets at least keep them on the same level.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot already covered this last week, I think. At least over in America.

The recording industries want to shut down ports on your televisions if they have the ability to download and stream movies, preventing you from making illegal copies with another input device (like a computer or DVR).

Re:Oh really?

[Monkeedude1212]

Except that VCR's (or the VHS tapes?) now come with that built in thing that doesn't let you record off of another input from a VCR or DVD.

Also, there is nothing stopping the Movie industry from attacking DVD-Recorders and VCR's, they simply haven't. I honestly think if they wanted to go up against DVD-Recorders they would have a good enough case to cause legislation forcing VCR Recorders to lock down the types of recording they can do.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, they aren't asking to stop providing internet. They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility. It is not ISP's responsibility to monitor for such activity, but they should deal with copyright notices when they are send one. Of course, IMO it should be courts decision.

But if we're going for analogies, lets at least keep them on the same level.

Wrong. To be fair, they are asking an entire industry to take on responsibilities for an entirely separate industry.

This would be akin to Gucci telling eBay it needs to police all of its auctions, rather than Gucci itself being required to police eBay's auctions.

It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.

Re:Oh really?

[poetmatt]

The problem is, there is no way to verify if the copyright notice is legit. It's not the ISP's responsibility to verify it either. Thus notice -> garbage. Just like DMCA false claims, which have proven to be inaccurate.

So no, their responsibility does not rely on assuming that a copyright infringement claim is correct, or even to care.

Re:Oh really?

[maxwell demon]

Let's transfer this to postal service. You know, it's quite possible to send illegal copies of copyrighted works by mail. So if someone is accused to receive illegal copies of copyrighted works by mail, should the postal service stop delivering mail to him?

Re:Oh really?

[TheRealMindChild]

Also, there is nothing stopping the Movie industry from attacking DVD-Recorders and VCR's, they simply haven't. I honestly think if they wanted to go up against DVD-Recorders they would have a good enough case to cause legislation forcing VCR Recorders to lock down the types of recording they can do.

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly. In fact, the postal service should employ people to open all letters and read through them to search for infringing activity. If it can't be verified to not be infringing on any copyright by independent *IAA representatives, it should be passed on to the police authorities, who should immediately arrest the criminal offender.
If they don't want to deal with the irate customers and obscene costs, they should just get out of the postal business. The American people will not tolerate people exploiting other people's hard work, nor people stifling innovation and hampering our cultural development by removing the incentive to create just to make a quick buck for themselves.

Re:Oh really?

[mister_playboy]

This is a bullshit attempt to Karma whore on Slashdot IMHO.

Karma whore? Anonymous Cowards can't karma whore.

You're doing it wrong.

Re:Oh really?

[c6gunner]

Ya know, every time I see one of your analogies it makes me think of a pizza with a giant turd on it. A big steaming coiler, with extra peanuts.

Maybe it's a result of watching "Drawn Together", but I'd like to think it's more due to being exposed to the constant repetition of something which wasn't very funny to begin with.

Re:Oh really?

[rickb928]

More like holding gun manufacturers responsible for murders committed by firearms. Or holding the cutlery industry liable for stabbings, especially with kitchen knives. Or perhaps we should consider holding drain cleaner makers liable for poisonings by their products?

The movie industry wants to ignore the legitimate uses of the Internet because they wish us to believe that the harm they suffer from infringement entirely voids the legal use of the Internet?

I don't agree. Let's keep that idea out of the U.S. as long as possible, k?

Thieves.

Re:Oh really?

[speed of lightx2]

In Canada there is a blanket tax for all Cd-R's that goes to the record companies. If you guy a blank CD in Canada, your automatically considered to be copyright thief (at least probabilistically), or as some other people prefer to think about it, you already paid for your right to pirate.

Re:Oh really?

[Crypto Gnome]

Time to apply the cluebat:

• infringing copyright is against the law
• if The Industry has evidence that copyright has been infringed, they should report it to the police (because laws have been broken, and it's the POLICE who follow up on law breakers)
• if The Industry does NOT have evidence that copy has been infringed, then they cannot reasonably expect The ISP to do ANYTHING

it *REALLY* is NOT a complex problem.

The problem is, today. it's easier and often cheaper to JUST GO AND SUE SOMEBODY FOR BAZILLIONS OF DOLLARS than pursue the issue in a straightforward and naturally legal manner.

Re:Oh really?

[easyTree]

It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.

Comparable to the recent trend of shifting the cost of supporting the users who buy your products - currently manifesting as "the inter-user support forum."

Re:Oh really?

[Smauler]

It is most definitely not like holding gun manufacturers liable for murders, because our economy can do without guns now. Our economy cannot do without the internet.... It has literally pervaded into every big business in the world. No major industry can do without it. It is fundamental to the current operating of all current big business.

ISP's provide a simple service... or they should do. If my ISP want to regulate what I can and cannot download, I will leave it. That or encrypt, then it's au revoir morons.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a HDD/DVD recorder that is hooked to a camera on an ROV (robot submarine) and it shut off and told me there was a copyright flag violation. You can't trust a machine to identify copyrighted material. Can't have hundreds of people viewing them to determine it, and they may not recognize it either.

Re:Oh really?

[ThePhilips]

Our economy cannot do without the internet....

But out economy can do just fine without movies. Hm....

Re:Oh really?

[easyTree]

The movie industry wants to ignore the legitimate uses of the Internet because they wish us to believe that the harm they suffer from infringement entirely voids the legal use of the Internet?

No, that's the just-beneath-the-surface 'apparent' reason for their actions.

The more likely one, in my deeply-suspicious opinion, is that they, together with government want to suppress the increasingly chatty exchange of information provided by the net and file-sharing.

File-sharing makes everyone a content producer, removing their dependence on thoughtless and unnecessary remakes from hollywood and returns control to the masses, where it belongs.

Likewise, these communication technologies make ordinary people far more difficult to control - they start to organise themselves, to spread awareness of pressing issues and abuses of power, casting light into the shadows where, previously, a cunning opportunist could hide and profit.

Are we to believe that the many independent press releases accidentally over-generalize to state that file-sharing is illegal or that they are part of a co-ordinated smear campaign with the goal of putting the cat back in the bag?

Re:Oh really?

[sjames]

If someone shoplifts and then goes home, does the auto manufacturer hear about it? How about the roads department? Perhaps the makers of the purse? NO?

If someone sets up a hydroponic marijuana growing operation in their basement, is the power company responsible for turning the growth lights off?

Is the phone company responsible for preventing conversations about robbing the bank? Are they an accessory to the crime if they fail? NO again?

The film studios need to talk to the people actually infringing just like everyone else. Why do they think they have a special right to have 3rd parties help them for free?

Re:Oh really?

[ThePhilips]

Actions of entertainment industry go far beyond "shifting the cost" or even "sharing the cost".

Forums took over other support means because it is really faster and better. Being cheaper (to manufacturers) it is plain side-effect. In fact manufacturers in some industries still dismiss user support forums and insist on expensive support contracts.

Re:Oh really?

[goonerw]

Next stop, having DVD-Recorders and VCRs removed from the shelves of your local super store.
The funnier next step would be. Sony Vs. Sony. i.e. Sony (The Movie arm) Vs Sony (the tech arm that makes DVD recorders and provides the software to copy DVDs).

Re:Oh really?

[thegrassyknowl]

> They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility.

Why is it the ISPs responsibility? They don't work for the music industry, and last I checked copyright infringement for non-commercial use was still a civil matter. Therefore the ISP has precisely zero responsibility to do anything since the law doesn't require it.

What the music industry is asking is for the ISP to _spend_ money so the music industry _doesn't_ have to. If these cunts want to send their copyright notices then fine. Let them go to the courts, prove that $IP downloaded $LIST to a standard that the court requires and obtain a warrant to serve the notice directly. Let them PAY the ISP for their involvement, since the ISP is nothing but a carrier. They are trying to sidestep the due process because they know their evidence is flimsy and wouldn't stand up.

Essentially what they're asking to do now is increase the costs involved in running an ISP; costs which will be amortized across all customers and result in a more expensive service for everyone.

Re:Oh really?

[thegrassyknowl]

I'm going to reply to my own post.

The department of motor vehicles is a good example. This is akin to asking the department to pass on infringement notices because somebody in a car was doing burnouts on my front lawn. You can actually do that in several ways. The only way that won't cost you money is involve the police on a destruction of property charge. If you want to access the DMV database you need a warrant and to pay money.

Why should ISPs be any different? They incur costs and if the music and film industries had to actually pay some of these costs they'd probably realise they're being greedy cunts and return to only chasing the bastards who _sell_ pirated films.

Re:Oh really?

[easyTree]

It's not faster or better. The creator of the product has little or no input, leaving their paying customers to support other paying customers, none of whom know how to solve any of the problems.

Typical posts resemble "I don't know. Perhaps you should file a bug report at <link to company's site> ?"

Re:Oh really?

[nurb432]

Or computers, hell, even the car you drive to the store to buy a blank DVDr.

Re:Oh really?

[shawnap]

Time to apply the cluebat: * infringing copyright is against the law * if The Industry has evidence that copyright has been infringed, they should report it to the police (because laws have been broken, and it's the POLICE who follow up on law breakers) * if The Industry does NOT have evidence that copy has been infringed, then they cannot reasonably expect The ISP to do ANYTHING it *REALLY* is NOT a complex problem. The problem is, today. it's easier and often cheaper to JUST GO AND SUE SOMEBODY FOR BAZILLIONS OF DOLLARS than pursue the issue in a straightforward and naturally legal manner.

I'm not sure about AU, but in the US copyright infringement, while unlawful, is not criminal. One cannot be arrested for it, convicted of it, or subsequently incarcerated (with exceptions.)
Suing for bazillions of dollars is precisely what the offended party is supposed to do.
Moreover, it's up to the offended party to decide who to sue. If A downloads a movie from B, with software written by C, over a communication medium owned by D, who is to be sued? One; All? If this is a simple problem, then please, offer your solution. Maybe we can get this whole copyright/internet thing sorted out over the weekend

(but don't take my word for it: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html)

Re:Oh really?

[Dan541]

Why should an ISP have to do anything?

Responding to copyright claims is not their job or responsibility. They are a service provider.

Re:Oh really?

[TapeCutter]

"It is not ISP's responsibility to monitor for such activity, but they should deal with copyright notices when they are send one."

They do deal with the notices, just not the way AFACT thinks they should, iiNet pass all infringment notices on to the WA police (who basically wipe their arse with them).

"Of course, IMO it should be courts decision."

Corporations often try and legislate through the courts. This is a test case of provisions in the AU-US free trade agreement, AFACT are attempting to establish a legal precedent to force ISP's to handle the notices the way AFACT wants them to. If our court agrees with AFACT's interpretation of the treaty then they will use that decision as a political wedge in other countries.

Re:Oh really?

[Dan541]

It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.

Not to mention the media industry is well known for making fraudulent claims. If I was an ISP I'd treat the notices as the spam they are.

Re:Oh really?

[Dan541]

The movie studios should go after the company's that supply the electricity to power the internet.

Re:Oh really?

[the_bogus_1]

I agree, were does it all stop. The likes of Sony produce burners that are used far more to copy copyrighted material than is downloaded. But those companies that are quick to point the finger also hold a large stake in copyright infringement producing products themselves, but like most try to pass the buck.

Re:Oh really?

[goonerw]

To be even fairer, the ISPs and AFACT already have a procedure in place to do this. AFACT agreed to it and choose to blissfully ignore it in favour of asking the ISP to illegally do their dirty work.

AFACT can stop abusing the legal system and fuck off. They have a procedure that allows them to inform an ISP of an infringement via a magistrate, the ISP will happily comply with the request and send the agreed details to the respective law enforcement agency. The fact that AFACT have sent 0 of these requests since they were introduced almost 10 years ago proves they really don't give a shit about the ISP, or due process.

An ISP is NOT a judicial body. Infringement Notices are not legal documents and AFACT is not Law Enforcement.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hypocritical. By all rights they should also go after:

* Australia Post - for providing an analagous facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes (delivering pirated CDs).
* Airlines - for the same.
* Credit Card companies - for also facilitating the purchase of infringed material.
* etc, etc.

All of these other services having facilitated copyright infringement for far longer than ISPs have been doing so.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was an ISP I'd treat the notices as the spam they are.

If you were an ISP, you'd know that 127.0.0.1 isn't "home", as your sig suggests.

Re:Oh really?

[multisync]

Next stop, having DVD-Recorders and VCRs removed from the shelves of your local super store

Yeah, it's scary to think about what would happen if the Betamax case
were being tried today. The geniuses in the movie industry did their best to kill VCRs for the home market on the basis that they "could be used for copyright infringement." Ruling that recording for the purpose of time shifting was fair use was pretty radical, as was finding that the manufacturers were not responsible for any infringement that does take place.

It seems a lot of countries have developed some pretty radical ideas about copyright law.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is easy to go along that line of thinking and consider the film studio's claim as completely idiotic, it would be perhaps wise not to.

Most lay people (including my mother), when confronted with the issue of piracy seem to think that they are not doing anything wrong as they are already paying for the internet access. To them the internet is basically a place from which you can download/stream stuff on demand, and they're paying for that. So in that case, it does make sense for the ISP to pay up the content owner. Ofcourse, it is not that simple technologically to quantify the amount and identify the content owner and probably that is why we (the tech crowd) do not think that this argument holds water.

Re:Oh really?

[donscarletti]

But out economy can do just fine without movies. Hm....

Well, in Australia it probably can. There is a profitable domestic movie every 4 years or so, the rest of the time it is relying on imports. If the Australian film industry was to collapse, that would be just one less thing for the government to prop up. Sure, American studios film in Australia, but this has nothing to do with the Australian box office figures, which are going to be trivial either way. If people weren't watching moves, they would be spending their time and money on something else imported from America, it doesn't really have much effect in the end.

Re:Oh really?

[roguetrick]

Maybe the fish were listening to a region specific version of DeathKlok's Mermaider.

Re:Oh really?

[roguetrick]

Yeah, in the US they'd just be following the specifics of the system. Is there anyone with specific information on how Australia's system works. (Also don't mod this guy Troll, what the hell are we, Digg?)

Re:Oh really?

[roguetrick]

Thats actually about the only interesting analogy I've seen yet.

Re:Oh really?

[roguetrick]

My curse is lifted, I was noticing that every time I replied to this guy he got modded into oblivion, but whenever I didn't reply he got modded up. I was starting to think the correlation was pointing to a casual relationship and I' have to have a duel with him on some skyscraper with pizzas.

Re:Oh really?

[rtb61]

Well actually is does have a impact, as they other products they are likely to buy are live entertainment where the performers get the bulk of the money and of course many other necessary products like food, clothing and accommodation. Publishers are likely to be starved out of a business that add pretty much nothing to except of course corruption, drugs, civil suits, sexual exploitation, greed and of course an endless stream of marketing lies.

The question here then is which is more important to Australia's future and the future of it's citizens the free and open digital exchange of information or feeding the bloated lusts of a self serving minority. So on one hand the development and growth of a whole new system of inclusive democracy or providing yet another mansion, mega yacht or private jet for drunken drugged up minstrels or other pseudo celebrities. So digital freedom of expression for an entire culture's citizens or the locked in and controlled mass media empire's engines of deception.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next stop, having DVD-Recorders and VCRs removed from the shelves of your local super store... you know... for providing a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes.

You don't go far enough. Expect a mass exodus when people find that copy machines, pens, pencils, paper, chisels, clay tablets and vocal cords are also banned as infraction-enabling devices.

Re:Oh really?

[Donkey_Hotey]

... The American people will not tolerate people exploiting other people's hard work, nor people stifling innovation and hampering our cultural development by removing the incentive to create just to make a quick buck for themselves.

And they say sarcasm is dead...

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.

I really hate to do anything that sounds like defending the designated shits, but, FTA: "If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business."

So it seems as if the assholes are taking responsibility for the policing, not trying to externalize the costs of policing, as you state.

However, by way of evening things out, I believe the issuer of a notice should be liable for exactly the same statutory damages as the issuee would have been liable for if the infringement were proven. IOW, endanger others wrongly at your own peril.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"To be fair, they aren't asking to stop providing internet. They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility."

So they're just doing the equivalent of asking JVC et al to prevent people from using DVD Recorders/VCRs for copyright infringement instead of asking them to stop selling them period? That's much better.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Except that VCR's (or the VHS tapes?) now come with that built in thing that doesn't let you record off of another input from a VCR or DVD."

This would have been a massive pain in the ass to my uncle, started out videotaping sports events as a hobby but ended up making a decent amount of money for a side job by selling copies of his work, if he hadn't already moved on to using DVDs instead. My other uncle (also an amateur videographer, but more of a technophobe) must be dreading the day that any of his VHS machines die and need to be replaced if you truely can't record from the inputs.

Re:Oh really?

[Hurricane78]

Next: Castrate all men. To remove their “facility” to rape women.

(Oh boy, I know that there are “battle tank butch” lesbians out there, who think I’m completely serious. ^^)

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know

You know,every time I see one of you silly little twats trying to sound like a streetie with the hip "Ya know" shit, I think of a turd, too.

Re:Oh really?

[mpe]

Not to mention the media industry is well known for making fraudulent claims.

Or at least "mistaken" claims. Without there being a penalty for bogus claims then there is no incentive for the party making such claims only make valid claims.

Re:Oh really?

[mpe]

Why is it the ISPs responsibility? They don't work for the music industry, and last I checked copyright infringement for non-commercial use was still a civil matter. Therefore the ISP has precisely zero responsibility to do anything since the law doesn't require it.

Presumable this is the ISP's case.

What the music industry is asking is for the ISP to _spend_ money so the music industry _doesn't_ have to.

If the music industry wants the ISP to do something for them then they should either pay the ISP (with the ISP setting the price) or stop sticking their nose into other people's business.

Re:Oh really?

[mpe]

This is a test case of provisions in the AU-US free trade agreement

How is this legitimatly part of a "free trade" agreement? If anything one business being able force another business to do something which increases the latter's costs (and interferes with their ability to carry out their actual business) is more "restraining trade".

Re:Oh really?

[mpe]

To be even fairer, the ISPs and AFACT already have a procedure in place to do this. AFACT agreed to it and choose to blissfully ignore it in favour of asking the ISP to illegally do their dirty work.

In which case it appears perfectly reasonable for ISPs to "deal with it" by filing AFACT's communications in the circular file and/or invoicing them for their time.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it all my EYES and EARS are infringing all the time maybe I should have them removed. Perhaps I should have my brain lobotomized since I can REMEMBER their crap as well

I'm soooo surprised that no one has gone on a gun nut killing spree at the label law firms yet

Re:Oh really?

[TapeCutter]

"How is this legitimatly part of a "free trade" agreement?"

The Aussie sugar growers would agree, they have still not stopped screaming about the government subsides given to corn syrup in the US. However it IS legitimate because the two (right-wing) governments signed it. It could have been worse, this is FTA lite when compared to the IP provisions in the original draft. That version would have seen an end to our prescription benifits scheme that has been operating smoothly since the 50's and ensures no Aussie family ever spends more than (IIRC) $1200/yr for prescribed medicine. Basically it would have banned generic drugs and Aussie taxpayers would now be getting gouged as badly as US patients.

"one business being able force another business to do something which increases the latter's costs"

Happens all the time, it's called "due diligence" and is essential if the rules of the game are to be taken seriously. Wether passing the notices on to customers is due diligence is basically what this case is trying to determine.

Also I think you misinterpret the word "free", when applied to markets or trade it means "free to participate", the words "trade" and "market" refer to a set of rules (the game). Wether you are free NOT to participate in the game is an obvious question that will never be asked by politicians and pundits.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's more like gun manufacturers being told "don't sell guns to these people, they're known to use those guns to commit crimes", then the manufacturer ignoring that and selling them anyway.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is A. Not that difficult. Next?

Re:Oh really?

[grimJester]

Also, there is nothing stopping the Movie industry from attacking DVD-Recorders and VCR's, they simply haven't. I honestly think if they wanted to go up against DVD-Recorders they would have a good enough case to cause legislation forcing VCR Recorders to lock down the types of recording they can do.

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios

Note the bolded part. It's not too far fetched to assume the studios could get legislation that does away with the "capable of substantial noninfringing uses" norm. It could be argued that the DMCA ban on decryption is a roundabout way of achieving that goal.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

As if the movie industry is in any position to make ultimatums anyway. The Internet is a much larger army than the film industry. All one would have to do is get 4chan riled up and all hell would break loose—like poking a hornet's nest.

Re:Oh really?

[WeeBit]

Unless the ISP's find a way to make money off of the music and film industry's blunders. I would be sending the film and music industry's a bill for services provided. If they don't like that, then they can get out of the business of music and film.

Re:Oh really?

[idji]

Your logic and analogy may be sound and all, but the fact is that it is reasonably technically possible for an ISP to know when a user is sharing a file illegally, but it is not reasonably technically possible for your telecom to know if you are plotting a crime on the phone, nor for a car manufacturer to know you will do burnouts, nor for the Post Office to know what illegal dvds you are shipping. And it is this technical possibility that these people are trying to exploit for their own ends. AND these people can imply or claim that the ISPS know all this and are exploiting this revenue-generating high bandwidth usage for their own ends.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Hermit]

"In AU, film studios issue ultimatum to postal services. Take copyright responsibilities seriously or leave the industry. 'Businesses such as postal services want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of postal service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' ".

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is technically possible, but the costs would be prohibitive. Also, it is not their responsibility to do so and indeed it would be illegal because it goes against the right to privacy - a basic human right..

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Hermit]

It's the same here in Sweden. CD, HDD, USB, VHS, etc - all storage formats has a "cassette fee" which is then passed on to artists through STIM, the same authority you also pay a fee to if you play music in a pub or if you have a radio station (anything open to the public, I think).

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that VCR's (or the VHS tapes?) now come with that built in thing that doesn't let you record off of another input from a VCR or DVD.

Not quite. Macrovision fiddles with the analogue video stream in a way that TVs handle just fine but VCR-type recording systems can't. It's encoded on the video signal on the VHS tape and will affect every VCR except those specifically designed to sidestep the issue.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. The correct answer is "B". The uploader is making the unlawful copy, not the downloader.

Re:Oh really?

[thegrassyknowl]

but the fact is that it is reasonably technically possible for an ISP to know when a user is sharing a file illegally

You'd think that, but it is not "reasonably technically possible" for an ISP to know every single piece of copyrighted work in all its forms and be able to decode the information flowing through the pipe and compare that to a database to determine if said work is copyrighted (oh wait, almost all work is, even this comment) and whether the owner of the copyright wishes to enforce it.

You can say "sure just look for video data or audio data" but then you block people who share home movies and other amateur productions.

It's not as cut and dried as you make it sound.

but it is not reasonably technically possible for your telecom to know if you are plotting a crime on the phone

I'd beg to differ. Voice recognition has become powerful enough that the telco could easily monitor all calls to pick out keywords and flag calls for more detailed (automated) analysis.

nor for the Post Office to know what illegal dvds you are shipping

Interesting. You're proposing that ISPs inspect every single packet that passes through their pipes looking for data that copyright owners don't want shared (where does that stop, and how do they determine what is actually not allowed to pass through?) yet the post office isn't allowed to inspect your DVD shipments to make sure they're not all pirated movies.

these people can imply or claim that the ISPS know all this and are exploiting this revenue-generating high bandwidth usage for their own ends

These people _can_ claim that, but it would never stand up. All ISPs include clauses that forbid the user from breaking the law or performing acts of copyright violation in their TOS.

For every person who chews out their monthly data allocation on pirated downloads there's probably at least 2 who download stuff they have paid for or are entitled to. I know that I chew out 20G/mo and a good part of that is VPN chatter to and from my employer. It's amazing how much you can burn up if you need to be on a remote desktop session a lot.

Follow up pissy letters to DVR dealers, Myth TV...

[Chris Tucker]

...Etc in 3...2...1...

Pot calling the kettle black

[Lead Butthead]

The court case between the NRLA (National Right to Life Association) and film industry drew to a close yesterday after the NRLA issued an ultimatum: Take copycat violent crimes responsibilities seriously or leave the industry. 'Businesses such as film industry want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of producing violent films and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said the NRLA's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that children is able to mimic. If they don't like having to deal with copycat violent crimes then they should get out of the business.'

ps. No, NRLA doesn't exist. I made that up.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[Kjella]

ps. No, NRLA doesn't exist. I made that up.

Don't give him any ideas.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[Anonymous Coward]

ps. No, NRLA doesn't exist. I made that up.

It's actually called the NRLC[ommittee].
Some (I don't know how many) of their State affiliates call themselves an Association.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[mjwx]

ps. No, NRLA doesn't exist. I made that up.

I'm fairly certain the Northern Lumber Retail Association exists.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[janrinok]

NRLA != NLRA

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[Hurricane78]

I just founded the NRLA, you insensitive clod!
We plan to merge with the GaBJeKTaU.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[mjwx]

National Retail Lumber Association then, check the link.

I'm dyslexic, you've got an OCD, we could probably pitch this as a sitcom idea to one of those American networks.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[Anonymous Coward]

ps. No, NRLA doesn't exist. I made that up.

No kidding - everybody knows that "right to life" organizations could give a FUCK once the "life" is actually born.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[Anonymous Hermit]

Copying a violent crime portrayed in a movie is clearly an infringement on their copyright. You have to negotiate a license before you are allowed to re-enact scenes from their intellectual property (though some would argue this falls under "fair use"). Content creators has to be protected from the public, because that's what governments are for, to serve the interests of corporations.

Why?

[BitterOak]

Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility.

Actually, all business want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money by providing a product or service to customers, including the movie industry. But since when is it the responsibility of one business to protect the business interests of another business? Cars can be used to facilitate bank robberies, matches can be used to facilitate arson, photocopiers can be used to facilitate copyright infringement. Should car manufacturers and match manufacturers get out of their respective businesses if they aren't willing to help?

Re:Why?

[Nerdfest]

A car analogy! You've made my day ... so far I've had to limp by on pizza analogies.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations love the free market until they actually have to compete with one another, against their consumers, or even against themselves (like SONY, who manufactures both content and devices that can copy/store/play that content). Then the free market becomes the biggest, baddest threat out there.

Instead of playing by the free market's rules, they sissy up and go running off to the courts and the government to try and eliminate their competition via legislation and lawsuits.

The only solution is to break these companies up. If they can't compete in the free market, then they need to go away. It's as simple as that, even if it means some jobs are lost in the process.

Re:Why?

[ewhenn]

"If an ISP in a case says ‘this is what we tried to do, we tried to deal with notices and these are the systems we use. We cant deal with every one' - let's assume [the ISP] get 100 of these notices per week and tried to process 25 percent of them.

"So they come to court and say ‘this is our reasonable response'. That may be one thing," Bannon hypothesised.
v "But in circumstances where they do nothing, where they say they can't send a single notice to anybody....

I dislike the ridiculous movie / music industry groups as much as anybody but...

You didn't RTFA. The above italic is from the article. They are upset because when notification of infringement is sent they essentially send it to the circular file and do nothing at all. All they are asking for is that when the infringed party reports copyright infringement, the ISP actually investigates it In all honesty, this does seem reasonable, provided they don't flood their offices with garbage reports..

The comparisons you are making have nothing to do with the above either, in all of those cases the individual/company has purchased a product and is not providing a continuing service. You can buy a car and then never talk to the manufacturer/dealer of the car again, including if it needs repairs. An Internet connection is a continuing service relationship. You pay a company monthly (in most cases) for a connection. When it goes out, you contact your provider, and don't talk to a 3rd party shop, etc. Apples to oranges.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are upset because when notification of infringement is sent they essentially send it to the circular file and do nothing at all.

Sorry but they did do something with the notices, they forwarded them to the Western Australian police.

http://mobile.itnews.com.au/Article.aspx?CIID=160896&type=News

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have my lifetime dialup service. :) Payed a cool 500 bucks for it.

Re:Why?

[BitterOak]

The comparisons you are making have nothing to do with the above either, in all of those cases the individual/company has purchased a product and is not providing a continuing service. You can buy a car and then never talk to the manufacturer/dealer of the car again, including if it needs repairs. An Internet connection is a continuing service relationship. You pay a company monthly (in most cases) for a connection. When it goes out, you contact your provider, and don't talk to a 3rd party shop, etc. Apples to oranges.

Ok. Many (in fact, most) manufacturers of photocopiers sell service contracts with their machines and therefore have an ongoing relationship with their customers. Should Xerox have to deal with a flood of infringement notices when their machines are used to copy sheet music?

Re:Why?

[hldn]

I dislike the ridiculous movie / music industry groups as much as anybody but...

You didn't RTFA.

you must be new here.

Re:Why?

[ThePhilips]

All they are asking for is that when the infringed party reports copyright infringement, the ISP actually investigates it

Whoever sends such report must pay for the investigation. ISPs are business, not charity.

You pay a company monthly (in most cases) for a connection.

Yes, yes. I pay for the service. So why entertainment industry should get a free ride?

Re:Why?

[sjames]

If I hand you a subpoena and tell you it's for John Smith and he's one of your customers so I expect you to serve it but won't pay you to do so, you might toss it in the circular file as well. If I want it served, I can do it myself or hire someone to do it for me. I don't just get to recruit slave labor to do it, why should the studios be any different?

Re:Why?

[easyTree]

You're supposed to eat the pizza analogy, not use it as transport.

Re:Why?

[easyTree]

Dear Water Company,

My Child is all wet. My neighbour's child squirted him with water obtained from you. I demand that you cut off my neighbour's water supply.

Thanks.

Anthony Hoal.

Re:Why?

[easyTree]

lifetime dialup service

Is that how long it takes to download a DVD* ?

(*) Compendium of linux distros, volume 8.

Re:Why?

[smash]

All they are asking for is that when the infringed party reports copyright infringement, the ISP actually investigates it In all honesty, this does seem reasonable, provided they don't flood their offices with garbage reports..

Why is this any of the ISP's business? To investigate requires resources. Resources that are not free. And given that there is no legal or moral reason for the ISP to be spying on what their customers are doing without a warrant, then the film studios can kindly go and get fucked. Go get a warrant, and THEN pay the ISP for their time to investigate.

Perhaps if the media companies made better use of their funds to actually put some time and effort into producing content that was worth actually bothering to go to the cinema or pay for high def content and actually watch without feeling ripped off, people would be less inclined to download shitty low-def rips or cinema captures (complete with mr big-head in the front row).

Me? I'd feel ripped off if I bothered wasting the time and bandwidth to download 90% of the tripe coming out of hollywood these days - let alone pay for it.

Re:Why?

[mpe]

They are upset because when notification of infringement is sent they essentially send it to the circular file and do nothing at all.

Is the ISP obliged to do anything else? Especially as it appears that they are not following a previously agreed procedure.

All they are asking for is that when the infringed party reports copyright infringement, the ISP actually investigates it In all honesty, this does seem reasonable,

The ISP is not an investigative agency (and may simply not have the resources to investigate the complaint), nobody is paying them to do any such thing, it also isn't a good business practice to act against customers.

provided they don't flood their offices with garbage reports..

Without investigating they have no idea how valid (if at all) the complaint is.

Re:Why?

[mpe]

Sorry but they did do something with the notices, they forwarded them to the Western Australian police.

Even if postage is free to the police this would have still cost the ISP something. Maybe they should be complaining to the police and thanking the ISP for providing them with a service for free.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it carries with it a responsibility.

Sure. And who should define that responsibility?

Their competition?

Someone who wants to evade legal requirements by buying judges who will meet them in ex parte proceedings?

A disinterested third party?

A sanctimonious asshole like you?

Nice -- captcha = contempt

So... paper mills

[Colin Smith]

Dangerous thing paper. Can lead to all sorts of problems.

 

Re:So... paper mills

[corcoranp]

Like death threats, paper cuts, eye-gouging paper air-planes. Why doesn't the paper industry take these things seriously!!!

In Before Betamax -

[Anonymous Coward]

Not this shit again.

Re:In Before Betamax -

[Anonymous Coward]

^ This.

Same old song.

[Stumbles]

The media industry has been whining about this for ages; they want others to do their job.

Re:Same old song.

[davester666]

Actually, they would prefer cash, certified cheques or payment via credit cards instead of any work...

Re:Same old song.

[easyTree]

Their job is producing shitty movies, snorting coke and strong-arming $5000 out of each of their customers, not ensuring that their artificially-created-shortage-of-product distribution system isn't totally borked.

Where's the ultimatum?

[nidarus]

Sounds more like whining to me.

Re:Where's the ultimatum?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that the ISP's can only make more money. If a law is passed then all ISP's will be affected, to enforce those laws they will need some investments, a very good moment to rise the prices, no matter what competition exists they all will have to do it and all will add a healthy extra to the price. On the other hand, the movie industry will loose a lot lot more. How? Just wait and see.

Same to you, buddy

[cheebie]

How about if they start taking their responsibility seriously and let those works pass into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time, AS WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT. Give us back our culture, damnit!

Re:Same to you, buddy

[OzPeter]

How about if they start taking their responsibility seriously and let those works pass into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time, AS WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT. Give us back our culture, damnit!

Although I totally agree with your statement .. can we prefix it with the Studios having to make quality product in the first place?

And a pony too!

Re:Same to you, buddy

[Trogre]

I'm not sure I buy that argument - if the studios were only churning out unwatchable rubbish, then nobody would bother pirating it and this "problem" would go away.

Re:Same to you, buddy

[misexistentialist]

Life is both boring and stressful. People will watch anything to dull the pain. But going to work to pay for the movie that lets you forget work will drive you insane; thus the paradox that people both want to watch worthless films, and don't want to pay for them.

Re:Same to you, buddy

[shentino]

Getting something for nothing is a bargain.

Re:Same to you, buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'd buy your argument if the studios were offering anything but unwatchable rubbish, and the populace at large was demanding something of a higher quality. But they aren't; they consume what is given to them because that's all they've ever known.

Re:Same to you, buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, if the studios were only churning out unwatchable rubbish, then nobody would bother paying for it. Meanwhile, those who could get it for free might bother to watch the first 10 minutes after downloading it. The 'piracy' to 'legitimate sales' ratio creeps up, so the studios spend even more time complaining and filing lawsuits. Hang on, this is starting to sound mighty familiar...

Re:Same to you, buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes me laugh, what culture? What worthy creation do you think these commercial copyright holders should relinquish into the public domain? Mickey mouse or some shitty fifties science fiction movie? What you call "our culture" was nothing more than banal mass market dreck, none of it inspired by genuine grassroots cultural movement or for reasons other than money. It's not "our culture" any more than a milking shed is part of a cows culture.

That American culture is today is largely defined by narcissistic consumption and brand identification shows that you've already got what you want, thanks in no small part to "our culture" of yesteryear.

Re:Same to you, buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm not sure I buy that argument - if the studios were only churning out unwatchable rubbish, then nobody would bother pirating it and this "problem" would go away.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they'd blame their losses on piracy and try to pass legislation forcing us to pay them.

Re:Same to you, buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

I havent bought music for a long time. I haven't downloaded anything. I went to some life performances.

But the music industry always asks if you have bought something and if you deny it they only imagine that you have made illegal downloads. The third option: "I am not interested anymore" doesn't come to mind.

They even get warrants on ridiculous accusations like using rapidshare for illegal stuff (yep there were uploads, but distributing family gathering pictures isn't illegal as I am the rights holder and everyone on the pictures gave consent). When they are in the house it is too late anyways. They'll find something. And if it is only a rest on a RW you used to move your own pictures to buddies, because they used it to temporarily store some copyrighted material without you knowing it. Apparently they don't have to prove the data went to you or was placed there by you. YOU have to prove everything, because you placed family photos on rapidshare.

Don't put anything on rapidshare. They are grasping at straws now and they are good at it.

The auto industry creates death machines!

[psyque]

The auto industry should also immediately take responsibility for all the death and cost due to people running over and robbing people/businesses with cars! They profit from death and destruction!

Re:The auto industry creates death machines!

[Duradin]

Don't forget all those cars loaded up hard drives full of pirated material.

Cars capable of carrying hard drives must be banned or the car companies should get out of the car business if they aren't going to take copyright seriously!

Re:The auto industry creates death machines!

[psyque]

Then they play it with the windows down. That's a public performance! They should demand the auto industry taxes all vehicles to offset the HUGE loss of profit.

Yeah, so?

[Pig Hogger]

Yeah, so? It’s not the military-entertainment-industrial complex that makes the laws, but parliaments.

They can huff and puff all they want, but that does not make it force of law in any case.

Re:Yeah, so?

[maxwell demon]

Yeah, so? It’s not the military-entertainment-industrial complex that makes the laws, but parliaments.

They can huff and puff all they want, but that does not make it force of law in any case.

Indeed. If they want a law, they'll have to buy it.

Re:Yeah, so?

[Crypto Gnome]

Yeah, so? It’s not the military-entertainment-industrial complex that makes the laws, but parliaments.

And you think that all those MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions and outright lobbying of congress will not get laws passed (ie effectively *buying* laws).

They can huff and puff all they want, but that does not make it force of law in any case.

No it' s the THROWING MONEY AT THE LAWMAKERS which eventually makes it law.

Re:Yeah, so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, so? It’s not the military-entertainment-industrial complex that makes the laws, but parliaments.

They can huff and puff all they want, but that does not make it force of law in any case.

Indeed. If they want a law, they'll have to buy it.

DMCA!

Re:Yeah, so?

[easyTree]

No, it's
1) whine about it
2) pay for an organised grass-roots whining session
3) buy the new law which then looks like politicians responding to the public will.

Re:Yeah, so?

[myowntrueself]

You really believe that in a democracy it is the elected government that ultimately wields power?

How do you think that government got elected? You think that if the media corporations were against them, they'd stand a chance of being elected?

Next you will be saying that advertising doesn't work.

Re:Yeah, so?

[Hurricane78]

And pay more than the ISPs payed to destroy them. ^^

Get out of the industry?

[M-RES]

Perhaps if the entertainment giants can't change their business models to suit the realities of the modern marketplace it is THEY who should get out of the industry!

Re:Get out of the industry?

[Anonymous Coward]

They will. I has started already. Why do you think they are fighting this much?

Re:Get out of the industry?

[matzahboy]

Yes, they need to find a new way to make money in the Internet age. But the question here is NOT whether they should attack piracy. This court case is debating whether ISPs should be responsible for fighting piracy.

Class-Action Lawsuit anyone?

[geekmux]

It simply amazes me the arrogance of a company that can sit back and whine about shit like this while posting record numbers (and earnings) at the box office.

Perhaps a class-action lawsuit is in order the next time I waste $15 and two hours of my life on a really shitty movie. Sound utterly stupid? Yeah, so does a lot of shit feeding lawyers these days, like this story.

Re:Class-Action Lawsuit anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand the connection between record profits and complaining about copyright infringement.

Just because you go see a movie doesn't mean your neighbor can watch it.

My local bar sells draft beer for $6 a pop. If I get 2, with tax and tip, I'm out (likely more than) $15. I choose to go to the bar anyway, so I don't complain that a beer costs too much. I definitely don't hold it against the bar that they don't let people who don't pay their tabs come back, even though the bar is making record profits.

The next time you go to a shitty movie, leave after 10 minutes and get your money back. Don't complain that you watched the whole thing.

On the other hand, I agree that a lot of lawyers say stupid things, and in the end, good lawyers embarrass them in court.

Re:Class-Action Lawsuit anyone?

[Anonymous Hermit]

The difference is that a bar is responsible for keeping order, so they hire bouncers or lose their license. An ISP is responsible for protecting it's customers privacy, and only a court order can force the ISP to divulge any personal information, and it takes real evidence to get that. ISPs are not responsible for suing their customers on the behalf of a third party. Now a third party is dismayed because it has to go through the proper authorities to see justice served, oh the horror of having to let a court decide when to break our right to privacy.

I agree with the recording industry

[timmarhy]

I think ISP's SHOULD deal with infringement notices, but they should also not have to do it for free. a fair administration charge would be applied to each request, say $1000. after all the isp will effectively loose a customer as well as wear support and legal costs out of it. oh whats that, that lunch wasn't free?!?! boohoo.

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[xiando]

I think ISP's SHOULD deal with infringement notices, but they should also not have to do it for free. a fair administration charge would be applied to each request, say $1000. after all the isp will effectively loose a customer as well as wear support and legal costs out of it. oh whats that, that lunch wasn't free?!?! boohoo. I completely agree that ISPs should be able to charge huge fees for "infringement notices", specially all that bogus DMCA spam. I have gotten quite a lot of these, specially much from the criminal enterprises ARTISTdirect and BayTSP. It does cost time and money to reply and explain to the incompetent retards that running a legal bittorrent tracker with legal content is no reason to send DMCA spam about some random file using a completely different tracker. btw, ARTISTdirect is also known for denial of service attacks agains Revision3, who also happen to use BitTorrent for 100% legal purposes.

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[matzahboy]

If they had to get $1000 per request, they would be profiting off of piracy. Many ISPs already forward the take down requests for free.

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[jonsmirl]

I agree that the ISPs should charge for handling DCMA notices. Is there any rule that says they can't? $1000 is excessive but $100 each is not. The ISP is not the one being charged with infringement. It is clear that the content industry is trying to transfer the burden of policing and negative publicity on to an innocent third party, the ISP. The content industry should not be allowed to shift this burden for free. If they want to pursue insane business strategies they can do it on their own dime.

The world has changed and big content has to learn to live in the new world. Putting a police officer in every teenager's bedroom has tremendous costs associated with it. If big content wants to take that route they should bear the costs and not try and shift them onto a third party. Might be a whole lot cheaper to just sell the content in a form that people actually want.

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[LeperPuppet]

I also think ISPs should pass along infringement notices, assuming that the copyright holders can provide evidence that the ISPs customer has been infringing on their copyright. ISPs however shouldn't have to foot the bill for enforcing the copyrights of others, especially those who have a history of making poorly supported accusations of infringement.

If a copyright holder can produce actual evidence of the transfer of a complete film/TV episode/whatever by an ISPs customer, then the ISP should forward the notice and charge the copyrights holder for any processing costs incurred. If the copyright holder eventually takes the customer to court, they can try to recoup this cost from them. This way if they're accusing actual infringers, they'll recoup their outlay, while if they're accusing network printers, they won't.

If the copyright holders won't do a thorough and respectable job of investigating potential infringements, why should they expect others to do so for free on their behalf?

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[PitaBred]

So? Just because someone else will wash your car for free doesn't mean I will. If you want me to do something, you're gonna have to pay me to do it.

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[Trogre]

You mean like AV vendors profiting from virus writers and hackers?

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[Trogre]

Why would they bother coming after a site that seems to only indulge nutbar conspiracy theories?

Maybe Alex Jones was really onto something! *rolls eyes*

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[Crypto Gnome]

You sir are a clueless monkey, and a retard.

"Infringement Notices" are just an email, there is LITERALLY ZERO evidence that it is what it claims to be, or that it was sent by the parties it claims to have been sent by.

Therefore I could (trivially easily) fake an email to your ISP, claiming hundreds of infringements, and get your intertubes destroyed. EASILY. and EVERY TIME YOU MOVE ISPs, I could rain down upon you a never ending trail of destruction.

Wityh "infringement notices" as they stand today there is literally ZERO verification, ZERO evidence. You are expected to take SIGNIFICANT ACTION based on RUMOR AND HERESAY. This Is Effectively PRESUMPTION OF GUILT, WITH NEITHER JUDGE NOR JURY NOR RECORSE TO A COURT OF LAW.

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[ThePhilips]

If they had to get $1000 per request, they would be profiting off of piracy.

... or police from crime?

You are taking it in silly direction.

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[ThePhilips]

$1000 is excessive but $100 each is not.

Forwarding such note is a sure way to lose a customer. Part of that $1000 would be a compensation to ISP for the lost revenue. And also prevent frivolous abuse. (Think of it: $1000 is magnitude less than the punitive damages awarded to content industry *per infringement*, iirc $7500).

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[smash]

I wouldn't even suggest that $1000 is excessive. To get an admin with half a clue to sift through logs and investigate a user's activities properly, the billable rate is probably a couple of hundred per hour (company charging rate, not what the admin gets).

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[Anonymous Coward]

$1000 is excessive but $100 each is not.

Why? The content industry set the standard for unconscionably high statutory payments.

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... you would NOT be able to rain infringement notices upon the parent unless you pay $1000 for each one... so where exactly do you get the idea of calling him a retard? And how the hell was your post modded insightful?!
Besides, isn't this how it should work? The infringement notices are, just as you say, meaningless and not legally binding. If the ISP is asked to deliver a message (=infringement notice) for $1000, why shouldn't they do it?
Analogy: if person A sends a threat letter to person B and pays the postal service to deliver that mail, why should the postal service even care about the message itself?

Point is, I wouldn't deliver those notices for free.

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[Anonymous Hermit]

If they can provide evidence that the transfer has taken place, then they should take it to court. An ISP should have no hand in judging if evidence is legit. They are a service provider and their responsibilities are like those of a power company. Only if a court orders them to divulge the information from a murder suspect's smart electricity reader are they allowed to do so. You wouldn't call the power or water company to give them your statement and tell them to notify the police about the dead body and toaster you found in your bathtub, so why would you call on the ISP when you find someone "killing" your profits? When two rights are pitted against each other it's a matter for the courts resolve. I suspect this film studio just doesn't understand that in a society governed by law, you have to follow the proper procedures to minimize innocents being accused of wrongdoing.

Would the film studio shoulder the cost of damages payed out to the customer of the ISP after a court rules that the ISP harassed him/her repeatedly with false accusations based on weak evidence?

Re:I agree with the recording industry

[Anonymous Hermit]

Exactly. Until a court admits the evidence presented, no one can say if the evidence is good enough. An ISP can't be expected to act on "evidence" without a court order. You want to sue John Doe, you take them to court - end of story.

Postal service

[xiando]

Letters and packages can contain all sorts of illicit material, I hope the movie industry doesn't manage to sue and buy judges into making them have to open every letter and every package just to make sure that there is no sign of "pirated" material inside. I never bought a single DVD, but I probably would have if the movie industry had not declared that it is somehow criminal to play legally bought DVDs on my GNU/Linux entertainment system back in the day. This joke of a trial has obviously not changed my opinion regarding buying DVDs.

Next targets

[gmuslera]

"They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes"

So next will come shops that sell computers, and photo/video cameras ? Keep reasoning that way and dont stop till all lives in caves (or worse, after all, human brain can be used for copyright infringement purposes after all).

Of all disaster movies, alien/monster attacks, still have to see one where the copyright industry attacks and successfully destroy mankind, at least have more chances to happen than the arguments of most blockbuster disaster movies.

Douchebag of a summary

[Anonymous Coward]

So the case closed. Who won and how? "Ultimatum"? What's the "else" part that makes it an ultimatum?

Will someone please call these jackasses' bluff?

[seeker_1us]

Film studios need the internet. The internet doesn't need film studios.

Post Office

[MBCook]

Is the post office responsible if I mail a copied DVD to someone?

Q.E.D.

Re:Post Office

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn I wish I still had some mod points. This argument ftw.

Re:Post Office

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is:

The internet and the postal system are both data transportation mechanisms, therefore any arguments that apply to the internet ought to apply to the post office. The fact that these arguments aren't applied to the post office is taken as evidence that they ought not be applied to the internet.

Have I captured the essence of it correctly?

This argument neglects to consider the possibility that their criticism of the ISPs may hinge on the details in which the post office is not like the internet. If that were the case, your argument would fail to hold.

So for one thing, I'm not aware of any well known piracy by mail services, but I'm aware of (and use) a number of indexes of torrents for pirated material. This is in fact, a large portion of what I download each month. In fact, if I were prevented from accessing pirated content, I would probably downgrade to a less expensive connection.

Let's not delude ourselves with intellectually dishonest arguments.

Re:Post Office

[Crypto Gnome]

Let's not delude ourselves with intellectually dishonest arguments.

Fair Call, that's something the MUSIC/MOVIE industry already does well enough without us joining in.

This whole issue is a cop-out. The ISPs are merely low-hanging-fruit aka scapegoats.

If you have evidence that a law has been broken, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with that which DO NOT involve ISPs. If you do NOT have evidence ..... then why are you badgering ISPs to be JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER?

Re:Post Office

[MBCook]

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it points out how this kind of rule is somewhat absurd. If the ISPs were directing customers to the illegal content, the argument would make perfect sense. But when acting as a simple data carrier, the argument doesn't hold water. You can't sue the post office. You can't sue AT&T because you called a scam company and told them your credit card. You can't sue Comcast because ABC news aired a report that upset you.

Now, it's illegal to use the post office for various crimes (thus postal fraud), and we could get laws like that. But asking the post office to inspect every letter/package sent to make sure it doesn't contain something illegal would be rejected outright. It's somewhat easier for ISPs since they don't need to physically open boxes/letters, but it is still a rather ridiculous request.

Your torrent site example is interesting, but those are basically catalogs. In a post office world, you sent a letter to the site asking for a catalog, and the post office sent it to you. The ISP is still a dumb pipe. Pretend that Colombia House used to sell pirated content. It's the same thing. Colombia house can get in trouble for doing it, and for using the post office to transport stolen goods, but the USPS (or UPS/FedEx if you prefer) isn't liable.

The best argument I could see against the ISPs is that they often advertise that their high speed connections will make online video better. If you assume most online video is stolen, they are technically advertising for it, but that's a stretch. There is tons of free video on YouTube that isn't stolen (cat clips, etc.), and free to view services (Hulu, etc.) that this doesn't hold water.

I always thought it was odd that the big ISPs advertised how their service was great for downloading music/MP3s years after the file sharing lawsuits started. "You can download MP3s 200x faster than dial-up! (but downloading 200x as many legal MP3s will cost you 200x as much)".

Now the argument that you would change your connection if you didn't download pirated content may hold true for you, but for many people it wouldn't. My parents don't download illegal stuff, but they like their high speed connection. As legal options increase (again Hulu, Amazon's service, iTunes, etc.) people have good reasons to want to keep high speed connections. Even for downloading family videos sent by other relatives/etc.

The thing that I find fun about all this is that ISPs are a dumb pipe. They need to be regulated like a dumb pipe, and priced like a dumb pipe. But they are trying so hard to not be a dumb pipe and pretend that they are better than everyone else because they have stupid service "X". Yet as soon as a lawsuit like this comes up, they go back to "You can't sue us, we're a dumb pipe". i would love it if these kind of lawsuits forced them to pick a side.

Re:Post Office

[martin-boundary]

Carrying is not copying. You're missing the enabling essence of the lawsuits, which is that internet transfers involve copying, therefore come under the purview of copyright laws, and it's the copyright laws that are giving the RIAA, MPAA etc. the power to sue.

The post office never makes a copy, as it actually carries physical goods directly. Thus the post office could never be sued for breaching copyright when someone sends a DVD to his friend, and the fact that they are no being sued in this case has no relation to common carrier status or otherwise.

The real problem is that information technology requires physical copying (inside your computer, over the network, etc) and the copyright laws happen to apply to this, even though computers and networks didn't exist when the laws were first conceived.

Re:Post Office

[MBCook]

But the ISPs don't make copies either. The end servers do. The ISPs just transport things.

I'm not arguing that taking movies off the 'net without paying for them isn't copyright infringement. I'm just arguing that the ISPs aren't doing it, they're just in the middle.

Re:Post Office

[martin-boundary]

The ISPs do make copies. Every intervening router copies the data, and who operates those routers?

I agree with you that ISPs shouldn't ultimately be held responsible, but I think the post office analogy is too far off to be useful in this case.

Re:Post Office

[lamapper]

The thing that I find fun about all this is that ISPs are a dumb pipe. They need to be regulated like a dumb pipe, and priced like a dumb pipe. But they are trying so hard to not be a dumb pipe and pretend that they are better than everyone else because they have stupid service "X". Yet as soon as a lawsuit like this comes up, they go back to "You can't sue us, we're a dumb pipe". i would love it if these kind of lawsuits forced them to pick a side.

I too would like to see their argument used against them to stop the bandwidth shaping, deep packet inspection, throttling of bandwidth, abusing Quality of Service (QoS) settings, restrictions (any kind) and net neutrality.

It should be considered Fraud to advertise 16,000Kbps downstream and 2,000Kbps upstream, yet as soon as the Speed Test completes, your bandwidth is throttled to less than 300Kbps down and less than 100Kbps up. Feels like Fraud to me.

It should be considered a violation of Privacy to do any type of inspection of your packets, especially Deep Packet Inspection (DPI).

The ISPs should be required to provide a minimum bandwidth to be considered broadband and the current definition, which they do NOT give us, of 768Kbps is way too low and should have been 100Mbps / 100Mbps in the year 2000. And by 2006, while that could have still been the "minimum" bandwidth to be considered "Broadband"; we should have had plans offering 1 Gbps / 1 Gbps for around $50 per month, as they have in other parts of the World.

They are just a "dumb" pipe and I can not wait for another "not-related-to-any-American-telco" entity to enter the American ISP market, provide fiber to all of our homes and take the "dumb" pipe market away from these providers that keep trying to hurt Americans, rather than helping Americans.

To date, the only provider that is offering 100Mbps / 100Mbps (for around $100 per month) is Greenlight in Wilson, North Carolina (NC). They were able to offer this level of service thanks to local politicians inviting their company to come into their community, actually lay fiber to homes, after the Cable Companies and Telcos REFUSED to offer service.

The Cable Co/Telco response, was to go to the North Carolina state legislature and attempt to pass laws preventing Greenlight from expanding, attempting to force them to cease and desist offering 100Mbps / 100Mbps service to customers. These "legal/lobbyist" attempts at controlling the North Carolina market began during the legislatures last term (2009) and is EXPECTED TO CONTINUE in the North Carolina's next legislature's session (2010). What the lobbyists get away with in N.C., expect to see rolled out nationally across the U.S.A. Lets hope North Carolina citizens learn and act before it impacts all Americans!

The only other place (location, besides Wilson N.C.) where Fiber is being rolled out "OVER THE LAST MILE" to people's homes in America is in Utah (with the exception of Verizon, which is charging $119 per month for 50Mbps / 5 Mbps...wonder what they throttle it back to bandwidth wise...perhaps 300Kbps down and 100Kbps upstream?) . Brigham City, Utah to be exact; if you have a home and/or apartment building in Brigham, you are allowed to OWN YOUR OWN FIBER connection to your home. It will set you back $3,000.00, but you will have Fiber to your home. I would love that. If I owned an apartment building I would pay for that single strand of Fiber, than use the right hardware laser firewall/router device to multiply the bandwidth on that single strand of Fiber from 1X to 1024X...I first read about that capability in 2005 or 2006...so not new technology in 2009.

Bandwidth in reality SHOULD BE UNLIMITED thanks to FIBER + technology. Thus Bandwidth Scarcity is a MYTH, designed to force you to pay between $100 - $150 per month for 300Kbps downstream and 100Kbps upstream...even though you have been fraudulently promised higher bandwidths.

100% of American consu

Re:Post Office

[Anonymous Coward]

You honestly think that if the technology existed to open and inspect every parcel without the recipient being aware of it, and without costing the post office massive amounts of cash (i.e. there was a way of filtering/flagging/logging parcels for later manual inspection rather than it being a case of lets hire a hundred more people per post office to do this task) that these jackasses wouldn't have the post office in their sights?

Re:Post Office

[eiMichael]

Unfortunately every router, every switch, and just about every jack that has a wire in it is technically making a copy. A brand new set of bits is created and sent out that is a copy of the bits that were sent in. Sure, the previous copy may be destroyed, but it is still technically copying.

Weather or not this represents a copy that infringes the copyrights of the rights holder is a different matter. The analogy would be if McGraw Hill could sue Kinkos because I made a handout for a presentation that contained some material from one of their textbooks. Is it Kinkos job to ensure that all their customers own the copyrights to the material they bring in?

Re:Post Office

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. The ISPs aren't to blame, they're just providing a service. It's not their fault people are using it to break the law.
The torrent/P2P/FTP/etc sites aren't to blame, they just provide links to other content. It's not their fault people are uploading illegal content.
The uploaders aren't to blame. They just installed a P2P program, and unbeknownst to them the program started sharing their private files. And besides, people aren't downloading whole works off them, just a tiny portion of it, which would surely be considered fair use. It's not their fault the downloaders are downloading many tiny portions, and/or other portions of the work from other innocent P2P users.
The downloaders aren't to blame either. Why, they're just sampling the content. You know, so they can not buy it later. Or give free advertising by telling their friends, so they too can download it. Or they don't like the price. Or the content. Or the format, the quality, the producer, the publisher, the retailer, or the payment method (ones that decrease money in the buyer's account are particularly disliked).
Well looky here, the only party left is the content industry. Ah-ha! THEY must be to blame! After all, we have to blame SOMEONE for society's ills, clearly it must be the evil corporation, since everybody else is just an innocent bystander.

How is this a logical argument?

[firesyde424]

"'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business."

Does this mean that Dell and HP should get out of the computer manufacturing business because they provide a device that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes? You might as well sue the oil companies because they provide the gasoline that powers the automobiles used in vehicular homicide.

Why am I suddenly curious about the annual revenue of iiNet? Something tells me that iiNet probably can't afford a protracted legal battle in the way that say... Dell or AT&T could.

The MAFIAA may change names and countries, but the bullshit is still the same.

Re:How is this a logical argument?

[DavidRawling]

No need to be curious. iiNet is a public company, with publicly accessible annual reports like this "Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statements of Changes in Equity and Cash flow Statement".

In this you'll find iiNet had revenue of approx AUD 250M in FY 2008 (July 2007 to June 2008), gross profit of about AUD62M and net profit of ~AUD20M.

Not a financial powerhouse, but I am given to understand Telstra ($4B annual profit) and Optus (can't locate numbers) have been lending a hand. If so, that does give rise to the potential of a prolonged fight, especially as Telstra has more subscribers than anyone else.

hopeless

[SeanFlotre]

that's why the industry is being so hardline about this stuff, they know it's hopeless.

Actually, I think the ISPs should fully agree

[cheros]

We've known for quite some time that exposure actually CREATES sales, not reduces it. As it so happens, I just came back from a party where one discussion was "I got this copy of xyz, and I liked it so much I went and bought the album" - which happened to be an answer to someone who did buy a whole book series of an author after reading a library book.

If I were leading some kind of ISP club I'd call all of them and ensure that indeed NOBODY carries that traffic anymore - absolutely nobody. I'd give it 2 months before the media industry realises just how deep they've cut their own flesh. At that point discussions will become a lot more sensible. There is really no better way to nuke their business that indeed following what they want to do and let them feel the resulting pain. Because it will prove just how Pyrrhic that victory is.

So, if you hang together you will either end up with a more reasonable discussion, or they'll go bankrupt - which also not a bad thing IMHO, that's merely another bubble where bursting was long overdue.

I don't think piracy is good, but there are pirates and home users - the two are different. One type will become your client if you treat them well, the other type does things in volume and belongs in jail (and has been proven to go out of business if you lower margins).

If you stick your *customers* in jail for being interested in your product the results will be pretty obvious. In the US there already a whole generation growing up knowing people of their own age whose life has been destroyed by the RIAA. Do you really think they will EVER buy another record in their life?

I give it two months, maybe three.

Re:Actually, I think the ISPs should fully agree

[Totenglocke]

I totally agree. I buy tons of dvds (but only ones I know are worth buying) and I've bought many movies / season of tv shows because of a friend of mine who pirates. If I'd never seen them for free at his place, I'd never have bought them.

Re:Actually, I think the ISPs should fully agree

[Dan541]

I do exactly the same thing, I don't think I have ever purchased a DVD that I have not seen first.

Re:Actually, I think the ISPs should fully agree

[Sirusjr]

Or CD I haven't listened to first.

Re:Actually, I think the ISPs should fully agree

[Anonymous Coward]

The point you're missing is: why should the ISPs care whether the music/film industry stays in business. Blocking the content would ruin their own business, and ruining the content producer's business even more is not a good reason to do it. After all, they aren't some kind of mortal enemies...

Re:Actually, I think the ISPs should fully agree

[cheros]

Well, I just have this sense of a recurring senseless debate, and I'm starting to get very fed up with having to argue with people that will insist on screwing things up for themselves.

Let them be, I say. Give in. Stop arguing and wasting your time. They will continue bending the law, bribing politicians and spout endless BS in the press until you do what they say, and I think we're wasting our time. Oh, and ISPs must ensure that the costs for all this effort comes squarely out of the music and film industry pockets - they should have 100% support then because they're paying for it. Not paid this month? Oh, damn, we can't run the blocking system then, terribly sorry.

It's a bit like what some civil servants do when they want to protest: they don't go onto the streets, no, they simply start applying the rules *precisely* and the whole system grinds to a halt.

Let it happen - I'm positive execs know full well that a 100% success will close their business in at most half a year (I reckon it'll be 2 months when it already starts showing up in sales figures). It'll give them a choice: finally stop this crap for good, or see the business fold. I reckon they'll choose the bit that retains money.

These people do positively do not know what they are doing, and they won't stop until they find out. So let them, and all that take their bribes, sorry, "campaign support". It'll show the game for what it is so we can finally move on.

And the same advice goes for you

[91degrees]

The movie studios need to put up with the piracy or leave the industry. People like to get free stuff. They can get free stuff. But it seems it's possible to make money even when this happens. Perhaps you should try that. Or not. Someone else will work out a way.

The plain truth of the matter is that it isn't the ISP's problem. The problem belongs to the person who is harmed. Maybe it shouldn't but the world simply isn't fair like that.

Re:And the same advice goes for you

[cdrguru]

The mission of many pirate groups is to make their product so pervasive as to displace the "legal" products. You want to download a movie and the first hit on Google is the pirate site. They get ad revenue and that is all.

Yes, it is coming down to that.

Re:And the same advice goes for you

[91degrees]

And that is certainly a problem, but it's not a problem for the pirate groups or for the ISP. It's a problem for the creators of original content.

Obligatory car comparison

[Weaselmancer]

'Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business.'

Could read like this:

'Businesses such as car manufacturers want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of automobiles and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer. 'They provide a product that is able to be used for vehicular homicide. If they don't like having to deal with accessory to murder charges they should get out of the business.'

Stop paying them

[Sean]

Stop giving them your money. If you live in Australia send these guys emails and tell them you won't purchase movies anymore. Tell them you will also discourage your friends and family from doing so. The vast majority of what they make is a complete waste of your time anyway.

Re:Stop paying them

[Dan541]

Careful, this is an industry that likes to sue people for not buying their products.

I just saw a movie about ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in that movie, I saw someone destroy people and be heartless, I choose to mimicked it.

Should the AU Film Studios deal with the consequences of my actions and be responsible or get out of the business.

Luddites in Oz

[hardburlyboogerman]

And I thought the rightwingnuts of the GOP were wacked out.

"The tighter you grasp,the more slips through your fingers."

Re:Luddites in Oz

[easyTree]

I just love the retards who receive universal truths via UPS. Good job, Skippy.

I hope they butt fuck me in prison and give me the AIDS.

Yours, AC.

Easy to Answer this Question

[MarkvW]

The side that owns the most politicians usually wins, unless public opinion is mobilized.
Nobody really gives a damn for people who want to unlawfully copy the work of others, so the outcome looks obvious.

Re:Easy to Answer this Question

[easyTree]

Consider though, that for decades the movie industry has been using every psychological trick in the book to make the public desire their product, all with the surety that they controlled the distribution mechanism.

Now that they no longer have that control, all their investment in psychological tricks is working against them. There is widespread public support, albeit covert.

Isn't it about time for "common carrier" status?

[erroneus]

ISPs are not far off from phone companies in the sense that they just carry traffic. While it's true that there are presently games being played with port blocking, applications blocking and bandwidth limiting, if given the option of becoming a common carrier makes them immune to the pressures of the copyright industry, then that's the way it should be. They would also likely stop playing games with the port blocking and all that mess as well.

If you don't like this...

[Trogre]

... then cut off the stream that lets these studios think they can dictate to ISPs.

In other words:

Stop buying their crap, and encourage others to do the same.

Now.

Those brave souls protecting film copyright......

[taksraven]

What has always annoyed me about this case has been the fact that iinet has been at the rough end of it, despite the fact that it has only been the third biggest ISP in Australia. Telstra and Optus, (The two biggest ISP's in Australia and the two that really have the funds to mount a legal defence against this sort of case) the real targets of this legal action, have been sitting at the sidelines rubbing their hands together with glee probably hoping that this legal action will topple iinet and give them more customers. Those prosecuting iinet would have seen this as a "cost-effective test case", in other words, they are picking on those who do not have the best ability to pay to defend themselves in court. I hope that somehow iinet wins this case, but even if they do, with mininova going bye-byes yesterday, the writing might be on the wall for bittorrent and the like.

*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

And the car companies should be responsible for hit and runs, bank robberies, and so on... and phone companies should be held responsible for people making threatening calls and phone scams... knife manufacturing companies should be held responsible for stabbings and robberies... gun manufacturers... well, better not go there.

Thats a plea of a dying

[future assassin]

mega industry and I welcome it. I always wondered why they never went after the computer, mobile device and networking equipment manufacturers. After all they are the first in line before the network line but they insists on badgering the ISP's.

Re:Thats a plea of a dying

[Dan541]

Don't forget the electricity company.

Action when it is appropriate

[aaronl]

The problem with this is that it really should never be the responsibility of an ISP to conduct an investigation just because some other privacy entity said so.

I shouldn't be able to get a landlord to provide me with tenant information because I decided one was looking at me out of their window. I shouldn't be able to get a purchase history from a merchant because I decided a customer was going to build a deck and their condo association forbids it. I shouldn't be able to get subscriber information from an ISP just because I decided that someone downloaded something that I think they shouldn't have.

If the movie industry wants this kind of information, then they should have to file suit, and get a court order for that information. Then they will have to prove that something unlawful actually happened, convince a judge that there was damage, and that an order for discovery needs to be created.

It is inappropriate to allow some private group to have the power to compel anything from anyone.

Ultimatum to the studios:

[nurb432]

Produce a product worthy of paying for, or get out of the business. And no, extortion to force payments do not count.

Ultimatum?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like suing the transportation infrastructure for enabling drunk driving. Seriously, folks, this is STUPID.

Responsibilities?

[ScrewMaster]

'Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer.

It's interesting how the content lobby in any country is very keen to assign responsibilities to others when it comes to milking copyrighted works for all they're worth, but when it comes to fulfilling their own responsibilities under the copyright laws of those very same countries, they invariably come up wanting. Matter of fact, they acknowledge no such responsibilities: to the collective minds of the copyright cartel, copyright is an exclusive right belonging only to themselves, not to artists, and certainly not to society as a whole. Furthermore, that right should never, ever expire because, well, they're entitled. It's sickening: the rank odor of corporate hypocrisy has been filling U.S. courtrooms for a number of years over this very issue, and I'm disappointed to see it elsewhere.

However, that particular industry drone is correct, ISPs do indeed have a responsibility: to the people who pay them to provide a quality service. I don't see the copyright cartels offering to pony up some cold, hard cash to offset the costs of all this enforcement ... as usual, they want someone else to prop up their obsolete businesses. Personally, I pay some good money for a decent Internet connection, and I'll be damned if I want a single penny of that to go enforcing other people's copyrights! That's not the job of the Internet Service Provider, it's not the job of government, and it's not my job either. That task belongs to those who hold said rights. If they're incapable of enforcing them, or find themselves unable to stay afloat in a world where artificial restrictions on access to creative works have largely vanished, it's up to them to find a way to stay in business or get out of it. George Gilder called this "Creative destruction": some businesses models must go under as casualties of progress. That's the price we pay, and difficult as it is for those who suddenly find themselves left high and dry, civilization moves forward. These selfish pricks are trying to turn back the clock: they're doomed to failure, but they're causing substantial damage on their way down.

If these sociopathic assholes had their way, we'd all still be listening to Edison cylinders. They need to be stopped, and their excessive influence on big government needs to be reined in once and for all, before the damage they're doing becomes permanent.

Re:Responsibilities?

[cdrguru]

Simple answer: there is no way copyright rights holders can enforce copyright restrictions today. Not independently, perhaps not at all without the cooperation of users.

Does that really mean that copyright should be abolished? Does this mean that every business that depends on payment for use of materials should be eliminated?

As it stands today, I believe the answer is yes. Anyone in the business of selling movies, music, books or software should be completely and utterly barred from doing business. Either give it away for free or just stop. It is obvious to me that very few users of such materials would complain.

And let's see where things end up.

Re:Will someone please call these jackasses' bluff

[ThePhilips]

The internet doesn't need film studios.

Can you even imagine internets without rabbid Star Wars fans or Trekkies?
What we're are going to photoshop then??

Re:Oh look!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well to be fair, posting stories about on Australia is his job. Or at least he thinks it is.

oh fuck off

[unity100]

he is not playing devil's advocate. for doing that there has to be a 'devil' in the equation you can point to. here, there is none.

the example of vcrs is as solid as it can be. they are also tools for copyright infringement, just like how cars are tools and accessories to bank robberies.

analogy does not fail if you fail to understand it

[unity100]

and you did.

the analogy is solid. spend a little more effort on understanding it, and you will succeed.

Re:Those brave souls protecting film copyright....

[Dan541]

iiNet is a significantly bigger target then their average victim.

What's next?

[Joce640k]

... telephone operators having to monitor the lines in case some music is playing?

Photocopier manufacturers posting a guard beside every machine they sell...'just in case'.

Re:What's next?

[Dan541]

Or the power company.

If cut someone up with an angle grinder then they have just profited from a gruesome murder.

When is the world going to reform lobbies?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is Austrialia post doing to curtail the piracy of copyrighted works through the mail?

What we really need to do is force our politicians to stop accepting contributions from industry to pass insane, unfair, illogical laws.

The Internet was here first

[gearloos]

I don't understand it. The internet was here long before the DVD. Why doesn't someone tell the jerkoffs in the Movie industry simply if they don't like it, go back to selling tickets to theaters. Just because they made something that is compatible, why should the original transport have to change to accommodate them? Typical elitist attitude of Sony and co... Now about the RIAA and the Music bafoons.. ..

in other news...

[smash]

hard drive manufacturers have been asked to ensure that their goods are not used for copyright infringement, or exit the industry.

Re:Those brave souls protecting film copyright....

[mjwx]

I hope that somehow iinet wins this case, but even if they do

I don't think the movie studio's have much of a chance. Justice Cowdroy is not stupid or a luddite. AFACT had three complaints against iinet which were:
1. iinet hosted copyrighted material on its servers (complaint withdrawn by AFACT).
2. iinet knowingly facilitated copyright infringement and directed customers to infringing web sites (complaint withdrawn by AFACT).
3. iinet failed to pass on infringement notices to customers.

So AFACT only has its most minor and weakest complaint left against iinet and iinet have a solid defence. I'd be quite surprised if this case ends in the favour of AFACT given the way they've conducted their investigations, the dubiousness of their evidence and the fact that most of their complaints were withdrawn after the case began. iinet has taken the line that they do not monitor their customers in accordance with Australian privacy laws nor do they disconnect their customers based on an allegation and the studio's needed to present solid evidence that infringement had occurred before iinet could action on it.

Stop give them money

[Anonymous Coward]

Possible action: simply don't go anymore to cinema. Each time you go to see their garbage super production, or blow out your ears with shitty music, you give them *YOUR* money. It is with *YOUR* money that MPAA / RIAA, or other international dogs, pays expensive lawyer and politicians to come back to you.

Ordinary phones are used to organise crime too

[JohnboyHolmes]

Isn't making ISPs responsible for the data they carry the same as making ordinary phone companies responsible for the conversations that they carry?

I mean normal phones are used to organise criminal activities every day but I am sure most of us would not be happy to have every conversation we have monitored. Even if you are doing nothing wrong there is the danger of things being taken out of context and inappropriate privacy exposure.

If I were an ISP...

[Hurricane78]

It’s really a joke. The teeny tiny industry of films, wants to put an ultimatum on the behavior of the whole ISP economy!
Most people do not know how ridiculously small the film and music industry is compared to others. It’s not far from the toilet seat and brush industry.

You know what I’d do? I’d say they forced me to block everything that could be copyright infringement, and then go to its logical conclusion:
Block every single video, image, text and just everything from them. Because as we all know, every time you look at one of those things, you made a copy on your computer. Even multiple ones. In the RAM, in the hard disk and CPU cache, in the VRAM, on the screen, etc.

I would also tell all my competitors to do it. And the TV and radio stations (as much as possible.)

The world wouldn’t even know they existed at all! Nobody would hear of their movies. And they would go bankrupt.

Then if someone came to me, telling me that that was anti-competitive / monopolistic behavior, I would take out the aggressively written threat letters from the movie studios, and tell him that they forced me to do it against my will.
(If my lawyer team would recommend it, I’d provoke the studios to send me a court order.)

So go on, movie studios. Please do (literally) fuck yourselves. ^^

Analogy fail

[AtomicJake]

This would be akin to Gucci telling eBay it needs to police all of its auctions, rather than Gucci itself being required to police eBay's auctions.

It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.

This is an anlogy fail, because this is exactly what happened in France: An upper court decided that it is eBay's responsibility to either ensure that they do no longer act as a platform to sell couterfeited materials, or to stop selling certain fashion labels (in this case: Louis Vitton, Dior, etc.)

This applies to ALL recordable media

[daveime]

Businesses such as recordable DVD manufacturers / VHS, Betamax, Blu-Ray recorders want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of recordable media and equipment and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business.'

Business such as movie studios want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of a rapidly dying horse (I see they've remade Nightmare on Elm Street now, ffs can't these people come up with an original idea anymore), while trying to keep that industry firmly locked in 1970s style price-fixing. If THEY don't like having to deal with offering reasonably priced products based on the distribution method (i.e. higher price for physical media, liver concerts, cinema seats etc, and a lower price for digital distribution), then they should get out of the business.

Re:This applies to ALL recordable media

[daveime]

... and "liver concerts" have nothing to do with musical dialysis machines or using medical equipment as theremins ... it was a typo, ok ?

Agreed

[Toad-san]

Given the original legal argument, the data channels that carry the Internet also should bear the responsibility for identifying and censoring all "inappropriate" traffic. Why just the ISP? Hey, how about all the phone companies? Somebody might be using a modem and a BBS! [gasp!]

I actually have no problems with deep-searching all packets for clearly identified, unmistakeable, absolutely unquestionable evidence of piracy of copyrighted material, and blocking those packets. However I submit there is no such technology, no way to do it, no way to make an absolute identification. It's like an autocannon that shoots escaped criminals by scanning all the pedestrians on a city sidewalk. Nice thought, but do YOU want that sucker tracking on you?

So ... let the copyright owners provide the evidence and the technology, let THEM do the blocking ... but force them to submit to a reviewing agency EVERY steenking package they intercept. And THEY get to pay a nice little penalty (let's say $10,000 per packet, just to make it interesting) for every wrongly identified packet. Said penalty being split between the sender and the receiver (since both are clearly identified in every packet). Oh, you're not identified in the packet? Tch, the money then comes to me (since this was my idea and all.)

We'll call the concept (and implementation, Left As An Exercise For The Student) "TOADPACK" ... yeah, that's the ticket!

(Copyright 2009 Toad Hall, all rights reserved) [Patent Pending]

Toad

Re:Agreed

[HungryHobo]

If I'm downloading copyrighted material so what?
It's not my responsibility to make sure that everyone sending me data has the right to send me data.
If I'm downloading something from sky.com or NBC how do I know they've paid the royalties to the content creators?
If some site sends me data how do you know I even asked for it?
If someone starts firing a copy of some movie at a random port on my PC there's not even a grantee that I've asked for it.

The only thing I'm responsible for is what comes from my machine.

Alright, lets follow this idea

[SmallFurryCreature]

If ISP's are responsible for what happens with and because of the service they offer, then doesn't the same apply to movie-makers?

So, if someone kills someone inspired by a movie, then the producers of the movie are responsible? All movie makers should from now on take full responsibility for their product?

I don't think anyone wants to open up that cesspool.

Why should only ISP's be responsible for dealing with what their customers do with the product? If I buy a gun, is the gun company responsible for what happens with the gun?

If I use candy to lure a child (everyone has to have a hobby) is the candy company? If I show an adult movie to a child, if a child buys an adult rated movie, is the movie company responsible?

For that matter, a lot of cars ads advertise speed. Speeding is illegal.

Where would it end? I am fairly certain no content producer, like say a rap artist, wants to be held responsible for the content they produce. So why only ISP's.

Re:Original Intent, Time for OSG :D

[freescv]

...got 1/2 way down the page before someone said something worth logging in to talk about. Like I agree with people who got there first but this one was worth the login time. reddit and digg.com are the same. Don't always log in and often just read stuff.
This copywrong industry sure needs it's head smashed in though. The best idea I could come up with is that our government, bought and paid for by lobbyists, needs a MAJOR reform (non violent, just better political parties).
...so I went out and bought http://www.opensourceg.com/ in hopes that the ideal of Open Source Government takes hold and becomes the majority party, worldwide, in every free nation.
The site sucks atm but I work on it each day in hopes it'll get a bit better and of course just to park the idea that since it worked so well for Linux vs Microsoft in computer land, FILLED with corruption and "need to know security" instead of "lets share this code /w everyone to hunt out flaws in it to REALLY be secure.
Well I can't think of a better thing to secure then the hard working people of North America's vote. Every 5 years is good, open source voting machines are a great step forward so the 2 past stolen terms are not repeated (like a Bush inoculation to prevent even worst presidents from stealing their way into office).
I'd rather see a Slashdot for politics, anyone who can reply and leave some links I can add to my pathetic website is appreciated. I'd love to see DAILY VOTES instead of every 5 years & 3 days after elections the lobbyists buy their new "leader's" opinions, stealing the vote from the 360,000,000 people in North America from, maaaaaaybe 500 people that have an interest depriving others instead of trying to cater to the populace.
So we'll take BACK our culture, it's a political thing in my eyes. ISP's can't do much, the power that has been given to the government is being abused and needs reform.
Love to see Open Source parties instead of Pirate Parties (but still support them, just crappy name, liking themselves to people who urder, rape and steal from the populace, nothing like the general population who just wants their tv shows online, in downloadable non drm formats.
So if any of you got an axe, bow or sword and want to waste some time I believe the battle for middle earth will be 2010 when they force countries into submission by FORCING ISP's to cancel your internet after 3 songs are downloaded (even though you pay 100 bucks.month for service and just want your shows in avi instead of on cable tv, f*ckers)
http://torrentfreak.com/30000-internet-users-to-receive-file-sharing-cash-demands-091125/#comment-619278
30,000 UK residents are already getting the first wave. I send my support their way for unjust, non elected laws being forced upon them by unelected officials. These front line men and women will be so pissed I hope they join the "enemy" camp of freedom, democracy, and fair use we all enjoy on the Internet.
I'll walk to Mordor, I just don't know the way. (where's a few good men /w axes, bows and swords when you NEED them? I need a f*cking bunch of Linux coder guys to admin my website /w me and rock some parliament! :D)
Don't just bitch and whine about the problems, TRY and find ways to counter it. Letter to congressmen (men, pfffft!) are pretty much useless when they are mostly bought by media guys. Pirate Bay went for parliament, so proud they were willing to "step up".
Just SICK of the abuses in govt w/o accountability nor transparency.

Just Once...

[IonOtter]

Just once...just...ONCE, I'd like to hear the lawyer for the defense lean into their client, nod their head, then turn to the presiding judge and say, "Your honor, based on current law and pre-existing statutes, my client has authorized me to tell the plaintiff, 'Go fuck yourselves.'"

leave the industry

[amoeba1911]

I like it a lot: "leave the industry" is a very good advice, they should follow their own advice.

They already made huge profits and continue to make huge profits despite worldwide recession. Over the past few decades the copyright law has been assaulted repeatedly for their sake and we have to endure a nearly infinite copyright term, along with DMCA, DRM and other bullshit just for their sake. If they feel their business is still being treated unfairly and they can't make enough profits to continue then they should leave the industry. The door is wide open, the message is crystal clear: "by all means please feel free to GTFO anytime you like."

They will not be missed: the void they create would be filled instantly by more creators who don't have such draconian views of content control, ie. people who are out to make art, not a quick buck.

Not about Big Media $$$'s

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not about protecting Big Media's bottom line. This is about surreptitiously implementing Senator Conroy's proposed internet filter. If this becomes law, it will be so much easier to comply if every bit and byte is inspected by the ISP's...

Ultimatum?

[tru3ntropy]

Doesn't an ultimatum imply some sort of threat, like we will destroy you; not we will suggest that you get out of the industry?