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."

16 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Wow. Get a load of that. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, american embassies are MPAA's bitches ?

    1. Re:Wow. Get a load of that. by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, the US govt is the MPAA's bitch.
      The US embassy serves the US govt.

      As such, the MPAA's cozy relationship with US politicians permits these sorts of things.

      No quid pr quo my hairy white ass.

    2. Re:Wow. Get a load of that. by rhook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And this is why lobbying and campaign contributions need to be outlawed.

    3. Re:Wow. Get a load of that. by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, american embassies are MPAA's bitches ?

      Not quite - More like the entire US government will bend over for the highest bidder. The fact that embassies serve our interests abroad, and the MPAA can bid pretty damned high, counts as merely an incidental fact in this situation.

      Ironically enough, as a consequence, we may do better with the personally-richer candidate in any election, because it will cost more for them to take any potential buyer seriously. But at this point, it looks more and more like we have only one of the traditional "boxes" of democracy remaining.

      Seriously? We have Hollywood publicly admitting an expectation of quid pro quo for its "campaign contributions" and now this, and the government doesn't give the least bit of a flying fuck. Welcome to the end of the modern experiment. At least we went the "Marie Antoinette", rather than the "thermonuclear global holocaust", route.

    4. Re:Wow. Get a load of that. by Avarist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They might want you to call it 'lobbying and campaign contributions', I call that outright corruption.

      --
      In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
    5. Re:Wow. Get a load of that. by spyder-implee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It totally should, although until then I think that iiNet's court victory coupled with the un-earthing of the clandestine activities of the record company & US embassy will hamper any cases brought by the recording industry in the near future. Or is that just wishful thinking?

      --
      Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    6. Re:Wow. Get a load of that. by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even better, Australia needs to throw out the US embassies in their country and cut off diplomatic ties. All the other developed nations should do the same, until we can get our act together.

    7. Re:Wow. Get a load of that. by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Give us a year or two - for now we still buy a little bit of stuff from the USA instead of directly from Asia where it is made. As you guys keep outsourcing it won't be long before there isn't anything we want to buy from the USA.
      You can keep the military hardware. We've been conned into buying crap as part of political deals - notably some obsolete but expensive torpedoes that didn't fit our subs until we modified the subs (stupid for torpedoes that are not made any more), some ancient Sea Sprite helicopters that were rubbish in 1975 let alone 2006, and some tanks that we can't even use within our own country without tanker trucks following them around. And don't get me started on the JSF. You may have some good equipment but politics and corruption means that instead of supplying it to your military allies you simply drain their military budgets into the pockets of big contributors and make your military allies buy expensive crap as part of a package deal.
      So there you go, you've fucked up your economy so badly that there's nothing much that we want that we can actually buy from the USA.

    8. 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

    9. Re:Wow. Get a load of that. by Serpents · · Score: 5, Funny

      Captain Jack Sparrow if you please!

  2. Right on time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    As I post this, it's almost 10:00am on Wednesday, January 24 in Perth, Australia where iiNet is headquartered.

    How many Aussies will take to the streets after reading this? Ehhhh... there's one! Oh, that's just a pedestrian... how about that one?!! Nope. Going to his car.

    (sound of crickets)

    (fade to black)

  3. Political consequences? by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Passing laws backed by the MPAA is usually a detriment to the victim country's economy (as seen with SOPA) and the quality of life in that country for it's citizens, which will make them unhappy with their government (as rising anger about these laws indicates).

    As such it can be seen as economic and political sabotage of foreign countries.

    For the US embassy to take part in that, couldn't this seen as a hostile act by the victim country?

  4. Role of Mark Arbib? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And what role did Mark Arbib play? He is an Australian senator, who is essentially a US spy. The wikileaks cables have revealed that he is in the habit of revealing secret information to the US embassy, to the extent that that the US assigned him a code name as an informant. Has Arbib been behind the scenes doing the MPAA/US government's bidding, shoring up sympathy in the Australian government?

  5. You can dislike Julian Assange all you like by AbRASiON · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regardless, it's things like this which makes Wikileaks absoloutely a very very important web site for the entire internet. I'm very glad this information has been revealed.

    1. Re:You can dislike Julian Assange all you like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still think that Assange is a dangerous, mentally ill douchebag

      The guy risks his life and freedom to bring information to us, the people. If what it takes to do that is a "dangerous, mentally ill douchebag" maybe the world needs more dangerous, mentally ill douchebags*.

      * although I agree he poses a danger to abusive governments and corporations around the world, what mental gymnastics did you do to conclude he is mentally ill (or are you his doctor?)? I think calling Assange a douchebag must be the cool thing to do because whenever Wikileaks pops up (even if tangentially) there are always some idiots who can't stop telling everyone how this Assange guy they have never met is such huge douche.

  6. Re:Enlighten me, please! by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Time for some Peabody's improbable history, so step into the wayback machine Sherman, and let's look at the US as it was 100 years ago.

    In 1912, the US was a heavily invested industrial nation, specializing in steel, oil refinement, textiles, industrial machinery, and scientific advancements. It had reached this status through the addage "you get what you pay for", and "the american way." (Which back then meant taking pride in your work, producing only quality goods, and being judged by the quality of your work and of your word. This motif was euphamistically referred to as free market capitalism, since it relied on heavy competition between stakeholders to provide only the finest goods at prices that were reasonable, and the buyers bought for quality and durability. Your products directly influenced your brand's desirability.)

    Over the course of the next 30 to 40 years, these industries vied heavily with one another, eliminating competition, and then reached a certain threshold where they realized that competing with one another was counter productive to producing profits. This is pre rico act, pre sherman act. These idustries had established a thriving local enconomy based on quality goods, which people had become accustomed to buying, and which had greatly improved the quality of living of their native demographic populations. As such, worker wages had gone up, unions had formed, and other "this hurts our profits" influences surfaced. (Additionally, the depression caused many contenders to go under, allowing for a "land grab" by the survivors, accellerating the development of the oligopoly.)

    At first, these companies agreed to not poach each other's profits through initiating pricewars, and instead agreed that they would increase the wealth of their directors and financiers through the reduction of quality in the merchandise produced. As quality dropped, the need for employees that had grown up on an ethic for perfection waned, and with that, the ethic itself also waned. Eventually, the only real characteristic that differentiated a us worker from a cheap foriegn one was the price of employment.

    Skip ahead another 30 to 40 years, after the momentary military industrial booms of the 30s and 40s, to the 60s and 70s. "Deregulation" was the buzzword. Restrictions that had been put in place to protect american citizens from corporate interests were discarded like used toilet paper. Trade tarrifs dropped like sleezy curtains at a peep show. Outsourcing began.

    Over the next 30 to 40 years, most of america's manufacturing industry had flown the coop, electing to capitalize on the post free love generation's niavite' and inherited buying power with cheaply made foreign built products. Buying american made started getting much much harder. Even commodity items like clothes and shoes couldn't compete with the cheaper, and often inferior foriegn labor that was made protiable by dropping the trade tarrif walls. The old vangard of US corporate power had officially left the US.

    In the wake of the second world war, the US motion picture and recording industries sprang into being, thanks to the developments in film and radio technologies, coupled with the obvious propoganda potentials of those mediums. In the ww2 and post era, these industries flourished while the old industrial center declined. The US work ethic had diminished to such an extent by the 60s, that entertainment and pleasure were basically the primary motivational force in people's lives. The idolization of hollywood actors and actresses really came alive. This generation was blinded by hollywood and television, greedily assimilated the "disposable goods" philosophy, and the media industry grew like crazy. (There is no coincidence that this is the golden age of filmography and music in the US. The vast majority of holdings of those industries were created during this time frame. It was a perfect storm for the entertainment industry.) During this time, the technology to really export entertainment to other countries came into