Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent Trial Makes Australia's High Court
daria42 writes "Australia's highest court has agreed to hear the long-running BitTorrent case between one of the country's largest ISPs, iiNet, and a group of film and TV studios represented by a copyright organization known as AFACT. The case has the potential to determine once and for all whether Australians who download content via BitTorrent can have their Internet connections disconnected upon the request of the studios. It's lawyers at ten paces!"
The High Court usually only hears cases that people argue goes against the Consitution and doesn't hear appeal cases too much.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
All it will take is a dubious copyright or patent claim against Linux get someone's connection cut. Make no bones about it: AFACT has been much more organised and persuasive than the RIAA & MPAA and too are attempting to force ISP's to do their dirty work for them.
This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.
When AFACT wanted ISP's to pass on copyright infringement notices to their users, Telstra, Optus etc were happy to roll over and do as they were told. iiNet effectively said "If you have proof of a crime being commited, take it up with the police. We're not here to have our customers harassed just because you say so". AFACT took exception to this, hence this trial
The copyright owner still has the right to distribute his material as he sees fit. You're merely obtaining the material through a side channel. Do you think the copyright owner wakes up one morning and says, "Gee, I'd really like to sell this material to you, but someone downloaded it on the internet. This means I no longer have rights to distribute my material, so I can't sell it to you. Sorry! Woe is me!"
That doesn't mean "copyright infringement" is a good thing, but you're going to have to come up with a better argument than that.
No ... there ARE no victims ... yet. That's what the case is about.
AFACT tried to make iiNet disconnect its users. iiNet refused (hence no victims). AFACT took iiNet to court. If iiNet lose, then yes there may be victims in the future. But as of yet, the end users of iiNet's service haven't suffered anything and hence aren't party to the case.
1. First, you say that if you copy my material I can still sell it. Is it still true if you copy my material and then offer it to the world for free? Because that's basically how P2P networks work. You actually say it in the end of your post, but whenever you download on BitTorrent, you leech as well (that's for most people using BitTorrent, you may have altered your client)
2. Second, I have the right to sell my work, but society grants me something more: I am the only one to have the right to distribute my work. When you take over and distribute it yourself, you kind of deprive me of my exclusivity don't you think?
3. Last, nobody cares if you would have bought it. But if you wouldn't thet you shouldn't have had access to the material. That's the law, plain and simple.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
The copyright fdoesn't gives you the right to distribute, it gives you THE EXCLUSIVITY to distribute. When some random dude download your stuff and distribute it for free, he doesn't deprive you of the exclusivity? How can you view it that way?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
AFACT is the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The last judgment against AFACT in the case against iiNet was explained very well by the judge in charge of that trial. This just goes to show that the music industry and the movie industry are desperate to protect their tenuous hold on the music and movie distribution business and have the money to fight all the way to the top.
If someone trespasses on your land (and thus violates your right to exclude), do you lose your ability to stop other people from trespassing on your land?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There is also a difference between copyright infringement and theft, and you know that. For the particular question, the right to exclude acts in largely the same way in both trespassing and copyright infringement. It's also similar in many ways to the right to not be assaulted. If I punch you in the face I have assaulted you, and violated your right to not be assaulted. If someone else punches you in the face, they have also violated your right to not be assaulted. Even if a hundred people punch you in the face, any further assault is going to be a violation of your rights. It's a bit awkward to think of it this way, but you have the right to exclude yourself from acts of assault. If "a bunch of dudes" assault you anyways, you still have the right to exclude people from assaulting you. Now, please don't think I'm saying that copyright infringement is assault or is similar outside of violation of the right not resulting in the loss of the right. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, and claiming it to be anything else is almost certainly a bad idea.
True, but mathematically, the peers average 1 copy downloaded and 1 copy uploaded, and they are only halfway responsible for that traffic, making them, on average, responsible for the creation of 1 illicit copy
You're going to need a citation for that, as most of the studies I've seen show that those that illegally download end up having more than they could afford to acquire legally. Your wording does seem to indicate a major part of the underlying cause, though, as illicit channels often provide a better, easier product than legitimate channels. If legitimate channels made it is easier for consumers to get what they want, copyright infringement would likely decline or at least not grow as quickly.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I'm totally ignorant of the issues but I still have an opinion.. welcome, this is what Slashdot is for :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
1) When you download using bittorrent you aren't also leeching but also seeding. Leeching means downloading something without uploading much/anything in place.
Furthermore, despite the fact that all music is available to me through illegal channels, I still buy loads of music, even more so then before it was feasible to download anything.
The ability to access loads of music has given me the opportunity to sample a lot more music then radio alone allowed.
2) Piracy will deprive you of exclusivity to distribute, but so does broadcasting.
3) Broadcasting means people have access to your work beyond your control.
Tell AFACT they're dreamin.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.