Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In AU, Film Studios Issue Ultimatum To ISPs

Posted by kdawson on from the bluff-or-bluster-you-decide dept.

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."

4 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. I agree with the recording industry by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  2. Actually, I think the ISPs should fully agree by cheros · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  3. Re:Oh really? by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I drink to make other people interesting!
  4. Re:Oh really? by shawnap · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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)