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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

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!

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.