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?

[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?

[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?

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!

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!

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: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.