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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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?

[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?

So... paper mills

[Colin Smith]

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

 

Same old song.

[Stumbles]

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

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

[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.

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!

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.

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!

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

[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: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.

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.

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.