Slashdot Mirror
Australian ISP Wins Case Against Movie Studios
trawg writes "The Australian High Court has just dismissed an appeal by Australian and American media companies against ISP iiNet, in what will hopefully be the final step in an ongoing copyright lawsuit drama. The Court noted that 'iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright.' Ultimately, the court has held that iiNet's inactivity to act on infringement notices didn't imply any sort of authorization of that infringement by their customers. Good news for Australians as a clear line has been drawn that will help ensure ISPs don't have to bear the cost of policing their customers."
Good to see this issue finally put the bed.
C'mon, surely this can't be true? Stuff like this *never* happens. This demonstrates a clear failure of the studio's lawyering and lobbying. They need to find more lawyers immediately and seriously up their game. If this sort of common sense is allowed to take hold, who knows what may happen.
The Australian lapdog^H^H^H^H^H^Hgovernment has already indicated a willingness to change the law, in the case of the judges not being intimidated by the MAFIAA.
The trouble is, when the courts smack down the media companies, the government steps in with new legislation, since they are in the back pocket of the media companies. Stephen Conroy, Labor's communication minister has already signalled that when iiNet loses, he's going to do just that.
I hope "no direct technical power" means what I think it means: that the court sees that there's no reasonable technical to way to police BitTorrent.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
I'm gladdened that the courts saw the logical fallacy of allowing one corporation legal rights to force another corporation to lose profits through direct cost or degradation of service based on a failure to adapt to market changes.
While i agree there is value being lost through piracy it just seems the courts were the easier path to take instead of adaptation and new delivery methods. That might require some planning and work after all.
I'm in 100% agreement with Gabe Newell from Valve that piracy is largely a service problem.
But since these fellows at the RIAA and the MPAA seem hell bent on using the copyright laws like a club to beat the ISPs and potential customers over the head with in order to get their way, will anything change?
Come and see why we are the new number 2 in Australian broadband.
great now 2 things...
let them know by switching to an ISP who won't filtering the internet is wrong
http://www.iinet.net.au/
secondly let your MP know filtering is not a good plan... a list of websites and twitter can be found :
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/find-your-local-mp.htm
regards
John Jones
Here's the Judgement Summary: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hcasum16_2012_04_20_iiNet.pdf
Here's the full Judgement: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html
In the full judgement, the Justices systematically (and unanimously!) take apart the assertion that iiNet had "authorised" infringement just because they refused to kowtow to demands that they police their users for the copyright lobby. They point out that it's not appropriate (or legal) for an ISP to monitor or police their users' private traffic at the demand of another private entity.
Further, they held that the notices of infringement (aka shakedown letters that most ISPs meekly pass along) "did not provide iiNet with a reasonable basis for sending warning notices to individual customers containing threats to suspend or terminate those customers' accounts".
And at the very end, after the Justices explicitly provide some useful closing of loopholes by carefully passing over the legislation and common law cited by the copyright lobby... they order said lobby to pay all iiNet's costs.
Glorious.
encrypt everything, yes?
The two main courses now of action seem to be: the media companies start offering media in a reasonable format in a reasonable timeframe at a reasonable price, or they lobby government and pursue backroom deals. The first is supported by many and has been proven to work fairly well with PC games by Valve with Steam, and iiNet has said it would be happy to help with this. The second however is much more in character, despite having been proven fairly well to not work.
Not that we aren't already shafted by American media conglomerates, but who wants to place bets on this decision reducing even further the desire for said media companies to deploy legal online streaming options in this country? I agree 100% with this decision, don't get me wrong there - I just think that as a result, these American media conglomerates are going to be even more timid about distributing their products in .AU
And a loud roar came forth across all the land, in a voice strangely reminiscent of one Darryl Kerrigan:
Hey. Bad luck. [pause] Ya dickhead. Suffer in your jocks!
Is the phone company to blame if someone plays a song over the phone and someone records it on the other end?
God spoke to me
i thought their complaint was that their products were already being distributed in AU without their involvement. i'm not sure what they think they'd achieve by not distributing their products here -- which isn't to say that i think it's unlikely that that would be their reaction.
While I can see it from the point of view of copyright holders, that ISPs derive a lot of their business from infringers (probably the majority of quota in Australia), this attack was underhand.
1. They deliberately focused on a smaller ISP with less resources to defend itself.
2. They encouraged local networks to join the group to cover what it was - a test case in a smaller country by much larger conglomerates.
Maybe this is just good poltiical sense, but the heart of the matter is that internet access is a fundamental part of modern society and allowing business interests, legitimately hurt thought they may be, to get their fingers on the control button is unhealthy for political and informational freedom.
The full judgment can be found here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/H
I just think that as a result, these American media conglomerates are going to be even more timid about distributing their products in .AU
I doubt it. They will distribute wherever they can get sales.
They used to export oil but now they won't produce enough for local use so they import it.
They used to export manufactured goods but it became cheaper to manufacture goods abroad and import them.
About the only thing left that they have to export is intellectual property, either in the form of technology or entertainment but in order to maintain the profits from such exports those properties must be tightly controlled. That's why the remnants of American industry, primarily the entertainment industry pushes for other countries to sign onto agreements like ACTA.
What they don't realize is that the harder they try to control the flow of information harder it will be to control. People will find new methods, new ways to exchange information. It was said that the IP network was created to be robust and to work around damage. Censorship and overly tight controls are just another form of damage and the net will work around them.
Yes, iiNet won and the studios lost. Now here's the reaction from the studos' media representative (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-20/iinet-wins-download-case/3962442):
----
AFACT [*] managing director Neil Gane said the group would lobby for changes to copyright laws following the decision.
"Now that we have taken this issue to the highest court in the land, it is time for government to act," Mr Gane said.
"The Government has always maintained that content is the key driver of digital economic growth. I'm sure the Government would not want copyright infringement to continue unabated across Australian networks, especially with the National Broadband Network soon to be rolled out."
----
[*] AFACT is the Australian equivalent of the RIAA/MPAA, or rather, as some Wikileaks memos have shown, they are the Australian arm of the RIAA/MPAA, the control directly coming from the States.
So, the copyright industry's attitude is that "if what we demand is unlawful, we will lobby/bribe/force the government to change the law to our favour". Knowing the Australian parliament, probably they will succeed in a reasonably short time.
In other words, buisness as usual, where they bring almost nothing over here and most of it is a year behind anyway.
Just because the courts told them to rack-off, does not mean it is a victory.
They will start lobbying politicians with made up figures and bribes to do an end run around due process.
This is the thin end of the wedge. Soon there'll be no media companies, and then where will I get my remakes of films from the 70s and 80s? Or rock bands that sound like Lady Gaga?
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
Perhaps the real solution is to have the 'AFACT' actually live in Australia for several months... if they survive - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/travel-old/australian-animals-show-theyre-not-so-cute-and-cuddly-after-all/story-e6frg8ro-1226331660816 - then perhaps they can try carrying on with this crap.
For those who are not aware, AFACT stands for 'Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft' yet most of the companies behind AFACT are American. It would be better named American Federation Against Copyright Theft.
I am not a lawyer, but I am surprised that no one has challenged the name of this business.. for example with the intent to force them to change it from 'Australian' to 'American' as right now they could well be deemed to be passing off in a deliberate attempt to deceive the public - which would be classified as a type of fraud.
A view from a lawyer or legal professional on this would be useful if anyone out there cares to comment..
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
I sent this in an email to my MP, I hope other people do similar, a message has to be sent RIGHT NOW on this issue.
As you may have read, iiNet just won their case against AFACT today.
Immediately after, AFACT has made a statement (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-20/iinet-wins-download-case/3962442) implying that they intend to now increase their lobbying efforts to enact draconian copyright laws.
My votes are chosen based on these kinds of issues, I won't vote for anyone that cooperates with corporations to reduce our own freedoms and stifle popular culture in the interest of profits and greed.
Copyright law is never to be taken lightly and it's a terrible idea to allow the content industry to alter them for their own gain.
Now watch as the studios pour all their money into lobbying etc. so that they can change the law and take the case back to the courts for a win. It's what they are doing in most other countries around the world right now.
I'm not an IP lawyer, but I think this judgment makes sense.
To use an analogy, they cannot be any more guilty than the post-office is when somebody posts scheduled substances in the mail.
Legally (and again this isn't my area), usually when a third party (like the post office, or an ISP) transports something, for the duration of time that they are in possession they are 'merely custodians' or bailiffs. They have no responsibility themselves for the contents.
It would also be, as the BBC article points out, terribly unjust to impose upon them such liability when their only recourse is to terminate the contract with the end user. Courts like business (almost as much as they like consumers). They wouldn't uphold that and certainly wouldn't set such precedent.
"YouTube could face a huge bill for royalties after it lost a court battle in Germany over music videos. A court in Hamburg ruled that YouTube is responsible for the content that users post to the video sharing site. It wants the video site to install filters that spot when users try to post music clips whose rights are held by royalty collection group, Gema. The German industry group said in court that YouTube had not done enough to stop copyrighted clips being posted. YouTube said it took no responsibility for what users did, but responded when told of copyright violations."
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
I did find it... interesting that my broadband quota dropped five-fold (150GB/mth to 30GB/mth) soon after the sale to iiNet.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
> Good. The copyright cartels are like negligent parents: they think all the rest of society should bear their responsibility for them.
The problem is Congress has been all too willing to make copyright penalties unreasonably harsh. 'Crimes' are by definition offences against the state or against the public. From that position of power copyright cartels have no need to let the free market run and reduce their prices.
You could ask why doesn't Congress take an equally harsh line against Patents? "You wouldn't steal a car, so why would you steal an Idea?" Instead of suing for patent infringement in civil court, have the police come around and throw start-up entrepreneurs into jail. Now that will send a message!