Slashdot Mirror
Australian ISPs Must Hand Over Pirates' Info
wabrandsma sends this report from the BBC:
An Australian court has ordered internet service providers to hand over details of customers accused of illegally downloading a U.S. movie. In a landmark move, the Federal Court told six firms to divulge names and addresses of those who downloaded The Dallas Buyers Club. ... The court said the data could only be used to secure "compensation for the infringements" of copyright. In the case, which was heard in February, the applicants said they had identified 4,726 unique IP addresses from which their film was shared online using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file sharing network. They said this had been done without their permission. Once they received the names of account holders, the company would then have to prove copyright infringement had taken place.
BitTorrent is a file synchronization protocol you insensitive clod. You assume slashdot readers need to be told what it is, and then you get it wrong by saying it's a file-sharing network.
Aussie better organize Mass demonstrations.
I don't get it... you all know networks like I2P, Phantom, Freenet, GNUnet, Tor, MaidSafe, Retroshare, and even CJDNS exist and are effectively bulletproof and a final FUCK YOU to the MAFIAA..... but you refuse to use them. Did you know that some like Phantom, Tor with Onioncat and CJDNS can even support your favorite sharing/torrent apps directly over native and private IPV6? Did you know you can download both a full lossless raw DVD-9 VOB rip and a lossless FLAC CD rip per day?
Yet like idiots with their heads you STILL continue to insist on using clearnet and complaining when the MAFIAA comes for you.
What a bunch of moronic internet masses you all are.
I'd tell the US to go fuck themselves.
I'm so glad to be living in Australia at this time.
Last week we get news that the government is forcing all ISP's to retain metadata information for all usage by all subscribers 'coz of terrorists'. Now we get news that the current data ISP's have, which is only supposed to be used for billing issues, is being used to identify and sue subscribers who had their IP in a torrent tracker 2 years ago!. No Movie studio my IP appearing in a tracker doesn't mean that I'm downloading or seeding your video. It just means someone possibly is using my IP to view who else is connected to that tracker. Or maybe the tracker randomly puts generated ips in the list to mess with you. Or maybe I allow my neighbors to use my internet or the public as they walk their dogs in a nearby park. Should I be held liable for them viewing publicly accessible information (the torrents tracker list)? Or should torrent tracker administrators be suing you for stealing their customer information? Couldn't this be considered hacking (accessing unauthorized information?)?
I hope this keeps up. Next week we will all be hearing about how to access the internet you must use your australia.gov login.
Since when is merely downloading something an offense? I think the article is most likely full of shit.
1. The applicants (plaintiffs?) claim to have identified 4,726 unique addresses from which a file was downloaded. So how does knowing the identities of the users of those addresses have *ANY* bearing on whether or not the plaintiffs can prove the crime? Surely the Court could and should have asked how this additional detail would change that proof? Then, *if* the plaintiff can prove, beyond the Court's threshold (does Australia use the "burden of proof" for criminal cases and "preponderance of the evidence" for civil ones?) it should be allowed to proceed with identification of the alleged participants.
2. This tactic has been attempted before, in the US Courts, with such a bad set of results that the RIAA and MPAA have actually backed away from the attempts. This seems to be because of the many instances where the plaintiff was able to link an IP address to a dwelling, but then discovered that multiple people occupied the dwelling, and were unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt [see above] which of those individuals committed the alleged crime.
I am sure that there are many other reasons for this anti-copyright activity to be happening in Australia right now [there is similar going on in the UK] - and for the record, copyright theft is a crime and should absolutely be punished - but there is a very real danger here that the tactics as described have already been proven to not work, to lead to miscarriage of justice, and to have been withdrawn in other jurisdictions. Is this a case of "venue shopping" - one in which the plaintiffs continue to try different venues for their case until they get a sympathetic Court system that delivers what they want?
They're gonna find you little file sharing ewoks and stomp you with their AT-ST lawyers. You will pay tribute to their shitty films with everything you own. All hail the darkside!
Why exactly is the Australian government so aggressive with this? It's not even this bad in the US, where the content owners are generally located. Is there some nuance to Australian politics that puts this into context or something?
would they owe $0.01 usd?
Why all the stories I hear about mass-lawsuits over piracy seem to be for crappy films like Dallas Buyers Club and that Hurt Locker thing.
Why hasn't Warner Bros filed a mass-lawsuit over piracy of the new Hobbit film? Or what about a lawsuit from Universal over the latest Fast & Furious film.
I am sure there are films out there that have been pirated a LOT more than Dallas Buyers Club (a film I hadn't even heard of before the lawsuit showed up) so why aren't we seeing these kinds of mass lawsuits on those films? (or if those lawsuits do happen, how come they dont get as much attention as the ones we hear about like this Dallas Buyers Club film?)
I find it interesting to note that Telstra was not included at all in these proceedings. They do have a very large customer base compared to everyone else and it would be statistically very unlikely that every IPs seeding the alleged torrent was connected via someone other than Telstra. It could also be reasonably speculated that Telstra have a legal budget far outstripping the other ISPs that were included by... a lot (they are giant compared to even iiNet, for those who don't know Telstra basically own communications in Australia.)
Do you think the legal budget of Telstra could be related to them not being included at all?
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
H. L. Mencken
Until today none of that obfiscation mattered and the Australian ISPs joined the Australian users to raise a middle finger to people who wanted to make copyright infringement a criminal offence.
It's proving that the person who's name they find was the one who actually did the infringing that's tough.
They should refuse and KILL any state agent who tries to force them.
Australia needs to be overthrown, along with the UK.
They banned men having guns.
Ban them having life.
Once they received the names of account holders, the company would then have to prove copyright infringement had taken place.
So long as they have to prove the infringement took place, then I have no problem with this. If someone commits copyright infringement, and the copyright holder can go to court and prove it, then the legal system is working. But does it seem likely that they will file 4,726 unique court cases? They will instead send extortion letters, or do a big massive case, or sue the ISPs to recover the money, or something like that.
to tweak BitTorrent to inject huge amounts of false data? If there's no way to tell if a particular IP is downloading or if it's false data, the information would become useless to them.
Lots of people should find torrents of popular movies and just get the "README" or "NFO" files in them, but not the actual movie. That way, when they get your IP as a participant in the torrent and to sue you for (downloading &) uploading the movie, you will have nicely defensible case.