Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Media The Internet Your Rights Online

AU Gov't Still Wants ISPs To Solve Illegal Downloads 218

Posted by Soulskill
from the beaten-but-not-defeated dept.
bennyboy64 writes "Australia's Minister for Communications wants internet providers and the film industry to sit down and work out a solution to stop illegal movie downloads, despite a judge ruling in favor of an internet provider not being responsible for policing illegal downloads. The film studios first dragged internet provider iiNet into the Federal Court back in November 2008, arguing that the ISP infringed copyright by failing to take reasonable steps — including enforcing its own terms and conditions — to prevent customers from copying films and TV shows over its network."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AU Gov't Still Wants ISPs To Solve Illegal Downloads

Comments Filter:
  • Not My Problem? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smd75 (1551583) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @10:48AM (#31052344)

    What part of a court ordered "Not My Problem" does the AU politicians not understand about policing illegal downloads?

    I dunno, I think the ISPs could use this as leverage against the studios to really pay up. Almost to extortion, but legal.

    Want us to police your content, we dont, but if you offer good enough incentive, we might make an effort to work with you, but we dont really have to.

  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @11:04AM (#31052438) Homepage Journal

    Indeed, Australia, YOU'RE PITIFUL! [weirdal.com] (scroll down for access to a free and legal copyrighted song).

  • Amish Internet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Max_W (812974) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @11:27AM (#31052556)

    Since there is no need for a plastic disk, box, paper cover, physical transportation, guarding, air-conditioning, etc. the price of a movie via download should be really attractive.

    But I cannot find a place to download movies and serials legally an conveniently. I saw some sites but they often say that this movie is not for a download in your country. Or a price is really expensive.

    Would it have been possible to forbid cars on early 20th century? It seems that it wouldn't, but there are Amish people who still do not use cars in their villages and towns.

    Maybe the Internet without movies and serials downloads is also possible. Sort of an Amish Internet.

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @01:04PM (#31053038) Journal

    The Amish are not forbidden from driving cars, they do not want to. Big difference.

    And I am fairly certain that the movie industry does NOT want to follow the Amish example as the Amish do not watch movies either.

    What amazes me is how clearly corrupt politicians are in this area. It is clear that the people do not want it, so why do they try so damned hard? You don't see them try nearly so hard in say restricting petrol usage. So what is the money eh I mean motivator?

  • by davester666 (731373) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @01:21PM (#31053190) Journal

    Isn't it more like, people are complaining about telephone-related fraud, so would the telephone company please listen to EVERY SINGLE phone conversation, and then report to the police all the calls that are fraud-related.

  • Re:Here's an idea.. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07, 2010 @05:44PM (#31055136)

    Do you have any idea how Senate voting works? I'm guessing, from your post, that the answer is no - so here's a brief rundown.

    Given a population of N people in the voting region for a set of Senate seats (there's never just one Senate seat up for grabs; it's always going to be two, six, or twelve seats), and X seats up for grabs, a "quota" is defined as N/(X+1)+1 votes, rounded down - so, for example, if N is 25,823 and X is 6, the quota is (25,823/7) or 3670 votes. Or, if N is 34,562 and N is 2, the quota is (34562/3) or 11,521 votes.

    In order to win a Senate seat, the party has to gain a quota of votes. If the party gains two quotas, they get two Senate seats, and so on. In Conroy's case, he is the first candidate on Labor's Victorian Senate ticket - so if Labor gets a quota in Victoria, he's in. Doesn't matter how many quotas Labor gets, if they get just one, he's in. (I'm blithely ignoring the intricacies in how leftover votes are distributed in the preferences, as that detail is not really relevant to this discussion.)

    Now tell me - what do you think are the odds that Labor doesn't get a Senate quota in this year's Federal election?

    In short: we're not going to be able to get Conroy voted out. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

I find you lack of faith in the forth dithturbing. - Darse ("Darth") Vader

Working...