Slashdot Mirror


US Embassy Sanctioned Lawsuit Against Aussie ISP iiNet

New submitter Elenor writes with this story (excerpted) from TorrentFreak, another nugget gleaned from the cables made public by WikiLeaks: "The Canberra Wikileaks cables have revealed that the U.S. Embassy sanctioned a conspiracy by Hollywood studios to target Australian communications company iiNet through the local court-system, with the aim of establishing a binding common-law precedent which would make ISPs responsible for the unauthorised file-sharing of their customers. Both the location, Australia, and the target, iiNet, were carefully selected. A precedent set in Australia would be influential in countries with comparable legal systems such as Canada, India, New Zealand and Great Britain. Australian telecommunications giant Telstra was judged too large for the purposes of the attack. Owing to its smaller size and more limited resources, iiNet was gauged the perfect candidate." The cable describes no overt action on the part of the American embassy, but the wording is telling: "Mike Ellis, the Singapore-based President for Asia Pacific of the Motion Picture Association ... said MPAA did not see any role for Embassy at this time, but wanted to keep us informed."

1 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wow. Get a load of that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The U.S. embassy did not actually play a role in this, and at no point in the cable do they say that they actually support this case, or plan on offering the MPAA any assistance. All they do was report back to Washington what the MPAA was up to, say they'd keep watch on how it developed. Anyway you don't have to take my word from it, here's the complete cable.

    C O N F I D E N T I A L CANBERRA 001197

    SIPDIS

    STATE PLEASE PASS USTR

    E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/01/2018
    TAGS: KIPR ECPS ECON ETRD AS
    SUBJECT: FILM/TV INDUSTRY FILES COPYRIGHT CASE AGAINST
    AUSSIE ISP

    REF: CANBERRA 1173 (NOTAL)

    Classified By: AMBASSADOR ROBERT D. MCCALLUM JR, REASON 1.4 (B, D)

    1. (C) Summary: On November 20 several media companies filed
    legal action against Australia's #3 internet service provider
    (ISP) iiNet, seeking a ruling that iiNet has infringed
    copyright by not taking reasonable steps to prevent
    unauthorized use of films and TV programs by its customers.
    This is the first such case filed in Australia. The case was
    filed by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft
    (AFACT) on behalf of the Motion Picture Association of
    America (MPAA) and its international affiliate, the Motion
    Picture Association (MPA), but does not want that fact to be
    broadcasted. Initial reactions support MPAA's claim that it
    has a strong legal case. End Summary.

    A NEW LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST PIRACY AIMS AT ISP

    2. (U) On November 20 the Australian Federation Against
    Copyright Theft (AFACT) announced that several media firms
    had filed a case in the Federal Court of Australia against
    iiNet, Australia's third largest ISP, for "failing to take
    reasonable steps, including enforcing its own terms and
    conditions, to prevent known unauthorised use of copies of
    the companies' films and TV programs by iiNet's customers via
    its network." The action was filed by Village Roadshow (an
    Australian company that produces and distributes movies and
    DVDs, among other activities), Universal Pictures, Warner
    Brothers Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures
    Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Disney
    Enterprises, and the Seven Network (one of Australia's three
    major over-the-air television networks and a licensee of some
    of the infringed works). Proceedings will be back before the
    court on December 17; a ruling is unlikely before the end of
    2009.

    3. (U) This is the first such case to be filed in Australian
    courts. iiNet claims that it is protected by the "safe
    harbor" provisions of the Copyright Act - i.e., ISPs are
    merely common carriers of traffic, so the dispute is between
    copyright owners and violators. iiNet said in its media
    release response that it routinely turns over to the police
    evidence of piracy on its network.

    THE REST OF THE STORY

    4. (C) Despite the lead role of AFACT and the inclusion of
    Australian companies Village Roadshow and the Seven Network,
    this is an MPAA/American studios production. Mike Ellis, the
    Singapore-based President for Asia Pacific of the Motion
    Picture Association, briefed Ambassador on the filing on
    November 26. Ellis confirmed that MPAA was the mover behind
    AFACT's case (AFACT is essentially MPAA's Australian
    subcontractor; MPAA/MPA have no independent, formal presence
    here), acting on behalf of the six American studios involved.
    MPAA prefers that its leading role not be made public.
    AFACT and MPAA worked hard to get Village Roadshow and the
    Seven Network to agree to be the public Australian faces on
    the case to make it clear there are Australian equities at
    stake, and this isn't just Hollywood "bullying some poor
    little Australian ISP."

    5. (C) Why iiNet? Ellis said they were the right target on
    several levels. First, they are big enough to be important -
    iiNet is the third largest ISP in Australia. (Telstra,
    owners of top Australian ISP BigPond which has about half of
    the market, are t