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."
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.
As an Australian, this is a big relief. iiNet are actually a pretty good ISP too: great network, good service, reasonable prices.
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?
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.
So everyone tells me, but my experience of iiNet after they borged Netspace was the complete opposite. Network went to crap when I was moved from an Optus DSLAM to a Telstra one, the customer service stuffed up, and the price increased.
... wait, what?
encrypt everything, yes?
Nofbyhgryl!
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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.
Also, very glad to see that the High court awarded costs in iiNet's favour - translation, the MAFIAA have to pay all of iiNet's lawyers bill!!!
... wait, what?
Good. The copyright cartels are like negligent parents: they think all the rest of society should bear their responsibility for them.
Can't be bothered to be involved in your kids' life and pay attention to what they watch and what games they play? No problem! Just censor everything! Can't be bothered to do your own discovery and catch your own filesharers? No problem! Just offload the task to the ISPs without compensating them!
Tired, tired, TIRED of this bullshit. About damned time a court had some sense. Guess the MAFIAA didn't bribe^H donate to the right politicians this time?
Who knows if it's "put to bed"? Do you really believe the robber barons are going to just say "Oh well, we lost fair and square, let's move on"? They have quite a bit more money than sense, so they're just moving to a different front.
Me, I'm waiting for the inevitable Copyright Wars, in which I plan to fight for the Resistance. Check that: have been fighting for the Resistance.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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!
Ah - PHB encryption!
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
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.
Also, very glad to see that the High court awarded costs in iiNet's favour - translation, the MAFIAA have to pay all of iiNet's lawyers bill
It is the default in Australia that a losing party will be ordered to pay the winning party's inter-party costs. It helps to inhibit frivolous litigation.
I am a long time Internode customer (last three houses and I use Internode for my parents ISP as well) and I can say that at my current residence of two and a bit years, I have always been on a Telstra DSLAM at the exchange, but just this month, Internode upgraded to their own DSLAMs at the exchange, and I got a similar email informing me that my parents account will also be moved to their own infrastructure in the near future - so it seems it anything, the service is being improved with some extra cash that the purchase has injected.
There doesn't seem to be any other negative changes that I have noticed - the sales and support phone lines are still local, they are still amazingly communicative in regards to changes and progress on jobs - so it is all smooth sailing in my books.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
"Oh well, we lost fair and square, let's move on"
They didn't, the lost their original case, their appeal was denied and they took it to the High Court of Australia - pretty much the equivalent of SCOTUS in the US. There really isn't anywhere further for them to take this case.
Sure, they might try down a parallel path with a similar objective, but a wonderful side effect of taking it to the High Court is that now pretty much any similar path they try will still be in the shadow of this ruling - making it greatly more difficult for them to introduce anything remotely similar.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Good sense prevailed.
I wouldn't have stuck with Netspace for 8 years if they weren't fantastic. It was a terrible shame to see them get so badly stuffed up.
On leaving them, they sent me a survey to fill out to tell them why I'd left, the link for which didn't work, so I emailed the customer service people back, cc'ing Michael Malone, explaining how as a long term customer of Netspace that it was with regret I was leaving after 8 years as a customer, but in 4 paragraphs exactly how they drove me away.
The next morning, I got a phone call from a senior customer service person at iiNet, who apologised for everything that happened and gave me an undertaking that iiNet were going to endeavour to make sure what had happened to me didn't happen with their future acquisitions. Whilst it was too late for me as I'd already churned away, I hope that they stuck to their word.
... wait, what?
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.
While I'm sure studios don't mind that much. They are playing a bigger game than just this case. The certainty means that any lobbying for change of law cannot be stifled by claims that the current law is adequate (for what they want). So whereas law makers could have said there was no need to change the law to achieve what the studios want, the certainty of the High Court ruling shows that the current law does not allow them to easily pursue the ISP. So expect pressure on the federal government for a law change.
Whilst IANAL, I'm pretty sure that it's not a default position, but it is definitely an option that can be applied for. Will check with a lawyer friend...
... wait, what?
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
That or the government is the terrorist.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Here's the problem for me personally:
Where I currently live (in the US), I have three options for internet:
1) Dial-up.
2) Satellite.
3) Time Warner.
Since I require use of the internet for more than email, 1) is out.
Since I can't afford $90/month, 2) is out.
But with 3), the ISP is owned by the copyright holders. That is, the same company that owns New Line, Time Magazine, HBO, TBS, The CW, Warner Bros, Cartoon Network, CNN, DC Comics, Castle Rock Entertainment, and others.
There's a whole slew of ideas that were once considered so important they were taken for granted but have fallen out so thoroughly that people today barely even think of them at all.
For instance, thirty years ago there was a consensus that one company shouldn't control huge swaths of the media. It was understood that even the appearance of the conflict of interest was not to be tolerated.
You'll get blank stares these days if you bring them up.
Play Command HQ online
Naw, they formed a conglomerate organization for this case. The MPAA/RIAA didn't sue iiNet, "AFACT" did. It'll be trivial to simply disolve that organization as asset-less and avoid any costs.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
Why do you think the big media companies will stop pushing for less consumer rights?
Big media copyright is truely a case where "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" applies.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Consider me a weaponsmith for the resistance: I study compression and find ways to cram information into fewer bits, thus making it easier to transfer covertly.
Big media copyright is truely a case where "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" applies.
I suspect that eternal vigilance won't be enough and that in this case, the enemy must be bankrupted and their companies dissolved for us to win.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I believe that someone using an anonymous account is a lawyer as much as I believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy... sign in so I can verify your existence, and legal background and I'll change my tune ;)
My lawyer friend is overseas on holiday... the bastard! However my previous experiences in civil litigation 17 years ago resulted in my legal fees being deducted from the amount hence my statement. However, in my case it didn't get to court, which is probably why this happened... after the settlement and the subtraction of legal fees, there wasn't a lot left.
... wait, what?
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.
So whereas law makers could have said there was no need to change the law to achieve what the studios want
Who gives half a shit, let alone a full one, about what the studios want? Innovate or die. All else is ineffective.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
If you look at the court records, it wasn't actually AFACT that sued - it was its member companies (Roadshow, Universal, Paramount etc). AFACT wasn't actually party to the case.
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.
It's a shame mods max at 5.
> 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!
Let's hope the other major ISP's grow a set balls on this issue now that iinet has shown there is a genuine competitive advantage to calling the MAFIAA on their bullshit.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.