Slashdot Mirror
Dallas Buyers Club Case Struck Down By Federal Court (businessinsider.com.au)
thegarbz writes: After a previous court ruling covered on Slashdot where Dallas Buyers Club was forced to post a $600,000AU bond and accused of speculative invoicing, it appears they have once again failed to make a case for damages in the Australian Federal Court. After asking for a reduced bond of $60,000AU in exchange for details of only 10% of the original alleged pirates, and after dropping the request for punitive damages, Justice Perram concluded that the damages sought were still unrealistic severely limiting the liability of the alleged pirates if the case manages to go ahead. Dallas Buyers Club now has 60 days to respond before the case is terminated.
I like to invest some cash and, I'm not sure if this is the group but I had an offer forwarded to me about investing in a company that bought things like movie rights, copyrights, and things like that. I declined to invest though I think the friend invested some in one of these companies. I hope he loses his shirt. Well, no, but I hope he learns a lesson. I'm not positive but I am damned near positive that this was the name of the company. I'm almost sure... :/ Ah well... I did not participate. I don't really agree with the duration of copyright nor how it is abused.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
A bit of context might help to understand the summary without having to play follow-the-link, especially if you only know "Dallas Buyers Club" as a film starring Matthew McConaughey - or don't know of it all.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC is the company that owns the rights to the film (I think) and has been attempting to get the names of ISP users that they believe have been illegally downloading the film, for the purpose of sending them letters demanding payment of a fine to avoid being taken to court (the "speculative invoicing" of the summary).
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It's all quite straightforward. The Judge demanded that they ensure the penalties fit the crime basically - and they were unwilling to do so, so he threw it out.
That could be totally wrong, I didn't read the article, I read some twitter summaries (yeah, I know) but that's the jist I got from it.
Reasonable enough, very surprising and fantastic someone applied some common sense.
The first thing to be aware of is that none of this comment is accurate. This case was brought forward before the Metadata act was passed and is completely independent of it. I am not saying that the mandatory storage of metadata is a good thing, it's not, but you make your arguments look stupid if the first line of your argument is completely false.
The Dallas Buyers Club LLC vs iiNet case was lodged in October 2014, the data retention laws were passed in March of 2015 and came in to force in October of 2015. None of the evidence put forward by DBC was provided by the ISPs involved or was in any way retained, accessed, or otherwise related to the metadata laws.
Please feel free to fight these laws and any kind of movement into other countries. But co-opting unrelated events is not the right way.
Please feel free to fight these laws and any kind of movement into other countries. But co-opting unrelated events is not the right way.
That is not my intention, the density of how many of these laws are being passed means I have been writing so many of these letters lately, I have confused two legislations. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.
The Dallas Buyers Club LLC vs iiNet case was lodged in October 2014, the data retention laws were passed in March of 2015 and came in to force in October of 2015. None of the evidence put forward by DBC was provided by the ISPs involved or was in any way retained, accessed, or otherwise related to the metadata laws.
I have unintentionally linked the two by remembering what I saw in the Data retention law under Section 187K "The Communications Access Co-ordinator may grant exemptions or variations", 187G "Consultation with agencies and the ACMA" (Australian Media and Communications Authority) with when the National Security Legislation was passed around the same time as this case.
Specifically, I'm referring to the provisions under 187K enable the collection of this data from "service providers" by "enforcement agencies" and passing it on to entities like ACMA are the mechanism through which we expect these case to be brought and, *how* information is collected on Internet users.
It's interesting to ponder what a media authority may have to do with the provision of anti terrorism laws? Especially when you see provisions like this in the legislation:
187KA (5) The ACMA may take into account any other matter it considers relevant.
Apologies, for confusing the context.
The first thing to be aware of is that none of this comment is accurate.
Indeed, I have made a mistake posting about this stuff when I am tired. CISA is more comparable with the Australian National Security Legislation with regards to information sharing, which was worse than the data retention bill for US citizens but not the context of this case.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
With an average leech-share ratio of about 1, the average member of a BT swarm is no more of an "uploader" than they are a downloader.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No worries.
Enforcement agencies in the context of this legislation are police and security forces and do not extend to access by media company representatives such as MPAA. The ACMA is directly involved because ACMA is the entity that has responsibility for managing the internet in Australia, for example they manage they current blocklist that covers illegal content. The part of the acronym that is important in this context is the C. They are the primary agency dealing with communication. Their mandate starts as "The ACMA is a government agency responsible for the regulation of broadcasting, the internet, radiocommunications and telecommunications." It doesn't have anything to do really with "media" in the concept of media ownership or copyright or anything like that.
So to give an example if a site was deemed to be inciting radicalisation then the police, and in this case most likely the Australian Federal Police, would bring the information to the ACMA. The ACMA would then put the case around blocking that site. This however is where things become opaque as there process is not open to the public and the blocklist is not open to the public. The ACMA have also been know to use a sledge hammer and cause collateral damage in the past so the system is far far far from perfect. I have no idea if a court is involved in deciding the block list or not.
From the ACMA.
The ACMA's strategic intent
The ACMA is a government agency responsible for the regulation of broadcasting, the internet, radiocommunications and telecommunications.
The ACMA's responsibilities include:
promoting self-regulation and competition in the communications industry, while protecting consumers and other users
fostering an environment in which electronic media respect community standards and respond to audience and user needs
managing access to the radiofrequency spectrum
representing Australia 's communications interests internationally.
The ACMA has offices in Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney.
The ACMA has the vision to remain constantly relevant and the strategic intent to achieve this by delivering on its mandated outcomes, discharging its statutory obligations and transforming itself into a resilient, e-facing, learning organisation, responsive to the numerous pressures for change that confront it.
The architecture of the ACMA strategic intent is articulated in the following three-layer structure, which encapsulates the mandate from the Australian Government, the strategic purpose the ACMA has derived and with which it engages, and the standard the ACMA has set itself to achieve.
1. Mandate
The current ACMA charter from government is reflected in outcomes defined in its annually determined Portfolio Budget Statement (PBS), which indicates the proposed allocation of resources to government outcomes. From the 2012–13 Budget, the outcome mandated for the ACMA is to work ‘ with all stakeholders to maximise the public benefit, using the legislated regulatory framework to address the broad concerns of the community, meet the needs of industry, and maintain community and national interest safeguards.’
2. Purpose
The purpose of the ACMA is to discharge its statutory obligations and reflects how the role of the organisation is interpreted at a strategic level—‘why’ it does what it does. At this level, the ACMA strategic goal is distilled as being: ‘To make communications and media work in Australia’s public interest.’
3. Standard
Over and above the fulfilment of its mandate and achievement of its purpose, the ACMA has also adopted a standard of performance that reflects the level at which it wants to perform and requires a transformation of the organisation to deliver. This standard is defined as being: ‘To be, and to be recognised as, a world-leading, best practice converged communications regulator.’