Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Courts Make Life Hard For Dallas Buyers Club Copyright Owner

Posted by Soulskill on from the operate-in-good-faith-or-get-smacked dept.

New submitter Harlequin80 writes: There has been a significant update in the landmark case between the Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) and iiNet, an ISP in Australia, where DBC has been trying to blaze new trails in obtaining downloaders' personal details. DBC had previously won the right to access subscribers' contact details, for the purposes of sending a letter, subject to the judge reviewing the form letter. El Reg is now reporting that the case Judge has reviewed the form letters proposed by DBC, and felt that they were too close to speculative invoicing. As a result, he has struck down two of their four claims and, because he feels they are not likely to operate in good faith, mandated a $600,000 bond from DBC if they want to send any letters at all. The price has been set so high so that DBC can't expect to make any money on the claims if they break the court's rules. While not an end to the matter it will make life very hard for DBC going forward.

25 comments

  1. YAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only makes it hard for them if they decide they want to act like scumbags and extort money with the threat of the destruction of lives through court action
    If they play by the rules, no problem

  2. *shrugs* by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You say that it like it is a bad thing... I disagree. I think it is a good thing. I think it is high time that they change copyright simply because they can not actually protect it like they used to. For much the same reason we should change drug laws. We can not stop it and, in some cases, the laws that are trying to stop it is doing more harm than good.

    Meh... At least the judge looks smart in this case.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    1. Re:*shrugs* by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      The court will allow the studio to send invoices to downloaders if it only charges downloaders for the cost of a legitimate copy of the film, and if it pays the bond.

      Now the judge just has to argue that the cost of a legitimate copy of the film is $0.smidgens (based on downloaded film duration as a fraction of a Netflix subscription, say) and there's truly no reason to ever buy a movie in Australia... other than for that fuzzy warm feeling of sending money to the media conglomerates.

    2. Re:*shrugs* by KGIII · · Score: 1

      There are lots of reasons to still buy movies. I do it frequently and have no fear of pirating - I can pay the fine if bothered. Hell, I can fight it in court if I wanted. I have the time and the money.

      So, they can (and should) still sell movies. They just should stop expecting to be able to enforce their copyrights once the cat is out of the bag. Hell, they should be able to try to prevent copying if they want - we're not obligated to buy it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:*shrugs* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are the copyright owner of a movie you don't buy movies. You buy a specific license to view it in your home (no public performances) and then, depending on how you went about acquiring said license) you may also have bought a piece of silver plastic media that has a copy on it (you could also purchase a license via things like iTunes, Google Play, etc. without physical media). Either way it is still just a license. The only real difference is the ability to transfer said license - since physical media is currently still subject to the first sale doctrine (see exhaustion). If we could just get the ability to transfer a license with online only purchases, we could stop fiddling with DVD / Blu Ray.

    4. Re:*shrugs* by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That is true - I was using the term loosely and I have often commented on it. Either way, I think they should be allowed to try to stop us from copying. Good luck with that. They can try. I'd like to be able to *license* content online in a nice and easy format that was inclusive enough to allow independents and major studios in a single site. It would be awesome and I would pay extra for it if the catalog was acceptable.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:*shrugs* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. I've never been confronted with a license during the purchase process.
      I buy a *copy* of the movie, and am allowed to do anything with that copy which is not prohibited by law.

    6. Re:*shrugs* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to read then. All that crap you skip past tells you you merely have a license, and what its restrictions are. You pleading ignorant equates to guilt when charged.

    7. Re:*shrugs* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't attach extra conditions to a sale after the fact. When you buy something, it's yours.
      The copyright holder doesn't own my DVD; they just have a copyright, which restricts what I may do with its content.
      That crap you can't skip past just hits some of the high points of copyright--some of them in a very misleading way.

    8. Re:*shrugs* by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Learn to read then. All that crap you skip past tells you you merely have a license, and what its restrictions are.

      They can print whatever they want. I'm not legally bound by it. I can give people descriptions of baseball games without contacting MLB first as well.

    9. Re:*shrugs* by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not just that cost, they can recover the cost of the legal proceedings too. Spread around the many thousand accused that shouldn't bee too steep either though.

  3. That's the point of a bond by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The price has been set so high so that DBC can't expect to make any money on the claims if they break the court's rules.

    The whole point of a setting a bond is to remove any financial incentive a company would have for breaking the rules. If it was set it so low that the company would still make money by breaking the rules and paying the fine, then setting the bond would be pointless.

    1. Re:That's the point of a bond by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's sort of sad to have this actually be shocking since it's out of the norm.

      Far too often the financial penalties placed or threatened against companies are nowhere near what it would take to actually deter a corporation from taking action anyway, and so they're inclined to just write it off as a business cost - or at least it seems that way (anecdotally) to me.

    2. Re:That's the point of a bond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it would be pointless if the state didn't keep the money. As it stands, it would have a point: taxation.

    3. Re:That's the point of a bond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the same logic also justify setting the fine/penalty for copyright violations far above the actual value of the film downloaded? If the fine was set so low that the customer wouldn't lose money on average by breaking the rules and only paying the fine when they get caught, then it would be just as pointless.

    4. Re:That's the point of a bond by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The price has been set so high so that DBC can't expect to make any money on the claims if they break the court's rules.

      The whole point of a setting a bond is to remove any financial incentive a company would have for breaking the rules. If it was set it so low that the company would still make money by breaking the rules and paying the fine, then setting the bond would be pointless.

      This,

      DBC was warned very clearly about attempting speculative invoicing by the judge and DBC ignored that warning. Judges in Australia get really pissed when you ignore them.

      The whole case has been structured thus far to expressly deny DBC the chance to profit from it whilst complying with the law and I expect that in the end it will cost DBC more to pursue these people than to ignore it.

      The fact that DBC won the case but still lost money should deter others from attempting the same thing.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. Ironic, considering the movie plot by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...about a guy frustrated with bureaucracy, restrictions, etc on obtaining AIDS drugs who basically becomes his own AIDS drug dispensary.

  5. Dallas Buyers Club? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Is this Dallas Buyers Club as in the movie (with the company holding the copyright named after the movie?), or some other entity?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Dallas Buyers Club? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dallas Buyers Club Inc.

  6. "Copyright" Owner? Or Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this suit one of many brought by a troll firm that hasn't reported to, much less shared revenues with, the actual "copyright" owner?

  7. Business not changed... by mrops · · Score: 1

    The crux of the media conglomerates problem is their greed. We all know that, stating the obvious here, but as technology changed, they wanted to keep the same price and increase their profits, no problem, we all want that. The only problem, profits need to be in line "value added" by them. Back through history, they had to manage physical media, record goes through manufacturing, distribution and advertisement. Now, its pretty much just advertisement. Even that is mostly online now, no more putting big posters throughout the country side. No more 60 feet across billboards, just and advert on a site.

    So why is the cost still $50 for a bluray, I don't know. I just can't justify it, hell, there is so much more entertainment out there that I don't even bother downloading these movies, when I can grab a copy of GTA, Destiny, COD and have a much more engaging social entertainment with my friends spread across the world, why do I bother watching a movie at all. I mean a $0.99 game on app store provides orders of more entertainment than watching a movie.

  8. How many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... he feels they are not likely to operate in good faith ...

    How many courts examine the intentions of a corporation? In the USA it seems courts are confined to following the rules (which, according to regulatory capture are written by the corporations), and blaming whoever has the weaker counsel. The American philosophy of 'Gubbermint is bad. Greed will fix everything.' isn't popular with the rest of the world. Australians may not consciously know it, but they see corporations as their enemy: So the law keeps corporations aimed at the government. The government is a frenemy because Australians have some measure of control over them, via the soap box and ballot box.

  9. You too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could have a decent legal system America, if you dump your dumb system of govt and return to monarchy. Don't elect judges, have them appointed by an unbiased body.

    1. Re:You too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just go the hybrid route.

      Let's say nine judges on a 20 year term. Every two years a new one is elected. Over 20 years, 10 will be elected where only nine will serve. Every other judge would be elected by popular vote, whereas perhaps a legislature/executive would elect the other one. Executive appoints, legislature affirms/confirms.

      I'm also for letting states decide how they want to do Senators here in America. Popular vote is fine, but perhaps we should let us decide if we want the Legislature to decide or some other method, with a affirmation-type vote every 10 years to stick with it or go back to the popular vote (we have now).

    2. Re:You too by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Yeh because the general public can be trusted to elect quality candidates, ROTFLMAO.