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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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.

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!

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

[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: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.

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.

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.