Australian ISP Wins Case Against Movie Studios 155
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."
Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm amazed so few have stood up to their ass-rat behaviour. The studios have been bribing politicians so much they seem to think they actually run the country in many places. It may be that many people at this point *do* think they are entitled to dictate what ISPs do.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, now they just switch to your lovely politicians to enable them to dictate what ISPs do.
Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (Score:5, Funny)
C'mon, surely this can't be true? Stuff like this *never* happens.
Well it's Australia not some backwater podunk country like the United States. Everything on that slab of rock is trying to kill you, so a few lawyers don't really scare anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, as an Aussie who's been twice on his "deathbed" (admittedly only once from our huge array of deadly beasts, especially the drop-bears), I *still* have a fear of lawyers. I'm brave, not stupid :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers don't.
Australian Wildlife to the rescue? (Score:4, Informative)
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 [theaustralian.com.au] - 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..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An organization with two lies in its name! The one you pointed out, and "copyright theft". Tell me, how would one go about stealing a copyright?
When your organizatioon has not only one lie in its name, but two, you know it's an organization made up entirely of dishonest people.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that they mean copyright infringement [wikipedia.org] however copyright theft is much more sensational.. and probably very useful as a term to throw around in court and in the media.
I have no idea how copyright THEFT would occur as such.. perhaps if you served legal documentation claiming to own something which belongs to someone else and collected the royalties for it? Would that constitute 'the stealing of someone's copyright'...
Or perhaps if you walked into their house and stole the documents which grant a speci
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone is interested, the video of an Australia spider eating a snake is interesting - http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/spider-eats-snake-caught-on-camera/story-e6frfq80-1226332961171 [news.com.au]
So, if we use this as an analogy .. who is the snake and who is the spider? .. and in this case the spider gets one over the snake.
I think I'll go that.. the RIAA/MPAA/AFACT think that their customers are snakes.. and they are the spider (they want to control the web)
Send more tourists!
The last batch were delicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I didn't know that. Kind of rude. If all of the Canadians have pulled out.. then I think that the CRIA should be renamed or ended.
Problem is, if they left the CRIA then there probably isn't anything that they can do now without a lawsuit.
I wonder how many other organisations are actually the American RIAA / MPAA in disguise?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I always thought, when Murdoch dropped his Australian citizenship to become an American, he should have been required to change the name of his newspaper from "The Australian" to "The American". But then, his corporation calls itself "News Corp" when it should be called "Bias Corp", or something like that ... if we required "Truth In Naming".
So, yes, I would support your claim that AFACT would be less deceptive if it called itself the "American" FACT
PS: I would also rename Murdoch's former nation as The Pri
Re: (Score:2)
"Truth in Naming"
I like that.
If AFACT keep going on this way.. how long until someone does point it out.. in court..
I'm not sure how Abbott getting elected next year, because yes it is going to be a landslide *against* Gillard, will result in a Privatewealth. Care to enlighten? Along with how this change in politics could affect the copyright battle currently going on?
Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not sure how 'lobbying' works where you come from, but over here when you 'lobby' a judge, we call that 'bribing'
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Phiffle, its only "Attempting" if you get caught!
Re: (Score:1)
Phiffle, its only "Attempting" if you get caught!
On the contrary, getting caught is entirely irrelevant to the question. What determines whether it's "attempting" or not, is whether the bribe is accepted.
Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Australian High Court is very different to the US Supreme Court.
High Court judges are more like the high priests of Australian judiciary. Their professionalism and ego are very much bound to that appointment. Strict accurate literal interpretation of the law is what they believe in and what they adhere to. This often trips up many politicians and of course corporations. None of this sounds like, looks like, could possibly be, politically aligned decisions. Even when politicians have made their way there, upon appointment they have demonstrated strict professionalism.
Unhappy with their ruling. Rewrite the law so that it fits in with constitution or if that is not possible, attempt to force a referendum to get the constitution changed, so that the law you wants fits in with that. Yeah good luck with that.
More simple access to referendums (where the whole electorate) votes on a single issue, make stacking the high court kind of mute, they could say no, it gets put in a referendum and the majority of the public say yes, then it's yes. especially on key issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bribing is such a dirty word. It sounds low, base and frankly illegal. We can't have that. Instead, you lobby the lawmakers until you have legislation that leaves the judiciary with no option but to find in the studio's favour. The alternative is unconscionable - e.g. Disney DVDs & BDs drop in price, consumers have increased choice, customer service improves and margins fall. Think of the children for Dawkin's sake!
Re: (Score:2)
Short lived (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Western governments will not let their populations have a free and open internet without a fight.
Re: (Score:2)
No governments will let their populations have a free and open internet without a fight.
FTFY
Re:Short lived (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It was more complex, and less dependent on luck than that.
The internet grew because it was open. Several more manageable alternatives were competing with it, none of them got anywhere. If this actual implementation wasn't open, it would also go nowhere, and some other open one would replace it.
Now, of course, the existence of any global network at all depended on the governments everywhere agreeing to it. And they just agreed because the Internet did already lurk into their country running over the telephon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well the reason for that is that the average aussie doesn't know or care about politics, but mandatory voting exists here. So, every election they get out their crayons to draw penises on the ballot, or flip a coin to decide who to vote for.
There are perhaps 1-2% who care enough to decide properly, hence most aussie elections go down to the wire 49-50 between labor and liberal.
I say that as someone who lives here :D
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well the reason for that is that the average aussie doesn't know or care about politics, but mandatory voting exists here. So, every election they get out their crayons to draw penises on the ballot, or flip a coin to decide who to vote for.
Informality rates are around 5% [aec.gov.au], that includes both ballots spoilt by accident and those deliberately spoil. Average?!
There are perhaps 1-2% who care enough to decide properly ...
That figure should be 75-80%. See, I can pull bogus figures out of my arse too!
Re: (Score:1)
There are perhaps 1-2% who care enough to decide properly, hence most aussie elections go down to the wire 49-50 between labor and liberal.
You're obviously not a Queenslander - Labor had their asses handed to them on a silver platter just a few weeks ago in a 87-7pc split (the rest were independents). I guess the people had enough of Anna Bligh [abc.net.au] selling off government assets, sending politicians and their guests to football games at taxpayer expense [abc.net.au], and spending $300,000 a day on election advertising [couriermail.com.au] (at least that was at party expense). And they're still in the news accused of shredding files on their way out [theaustralian.com.au] no less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And you are a perfect example of an average American. Only an American can think an election is always between two parties.
Re: (Score:1)
Tooooooooooooooooo laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate (in my best james brown voice)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement [wikipedia.org]
We (used loosely) have already signed
The trouble is... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The trouble is... (Score:5, Insightful)
let your MP know on this single issue you will vote against them...
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/find-your-local-mp.htm [abc.net.au]
wonder how many people actually will... worth twittering/emailing/commenting on the MP in question
regards
John Jones
Re:The trouble is... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just be fair about it. Artists should be paid for their work, even if they use the *IAA's like loan sharks. Tell your legislator of choice to focus legislation on allowing the artists to ask distributors that they don't have a deal with for a *reasonable* payment per download (ie: about what an artist actually gets in their pocket per iTunes download), and also limit it to only those distribution sites that are making money (advertising, donations, subscriptions, etc.). Then let them go after the distributo
Re: (Score:2)
we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Implying the liberals aren't just as bad as labor for giving the copyright industry a massive fellatio whenever they want. Howards government started the acta talks, and the current labor signed it. This is not a switch government to fix issue situation.
Re: (Score:1)
I can't see Labour losing the next election or Liberals winning it as the Lib party leader is a mushroom growing in a cow pat. Now if Malcom Turnbull leads the party, then there may be a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're giving Tony Abbot far too much credit, surely he's the cow pat.
Re: (Score:2)
You just offended cow pats everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
If you dont think the opposition is going to support this, you probably have rocks in your head.
The opposition is just as pro-big-media as the government is.
Here's hoping (Score:2)
Re:Here's hoping (Score:5, Informative)
There is a reasonable technical way to police bit torrent. (watch torrent, determine torrents contents is your intellectual property, get list of IP addresses from the swarm, match those to users via ISP) But now the studios have to subpoena the ISPs with enough details to satisfy the ISPs legal departments then sue or prosecute the end users. The studio wanted the system where they got to shortcut the legal system at the expense of the ISP to punish the end user.
Basically the court said "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly. If it ain't worth doing, stop doing it."
Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No, things aren't going to change, unless and until people stop patronizing the rat bastards who fund MPAA/RIAA and their ilk.
If we, the human population of the world, just stopped buying their shit tomorrow, within the year, MPAA/RIAA would be pretty much irrelevant. Let them spend their remaining billions buying politicians. If we just stop doing business with them, there will be no more billions with which to buy newly elected politicians. It's simple, really.
Ditto Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and all the
good now let them know... (Score:3)
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/ [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 [hhttp]
regards
John Jones
Re: (Score:3)
Yet outside of the abc we never hear anything about it.
Yeah, which is the funny part considering that the ABC is government funded.
I knot that we are the "upside down" place and all stand on our heads, but this aspect always makes me laugh. The only fully government funded station (SBS is only partially funded by the government) and it is the only one that really calls bullshit when needed.
Actual Judgement and Summary (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Actual Judgement and Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
So, iiNet didn't just win, they smacked down just about all of plaintiff's claims, and made them pay all of the defendant's costs?
That's a big win.
Re: (Score:1)
Until you realize that it's just poking a bear.
A bear with deep pockets, and the will to get the government they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Expect some mergers with mining companies then.
21st Century Tungsten.
You joke, but that sort of thing does happen in Australia.
e.g. Western Minerals bought by a adultshop.com (sex toys, porn) to get a stock exchange listing.
Re: (Score:3)
deliberately went after iinet (a relatively small ISP)
They might have been smaller at the time, but there really aren't a "small" ISP. You also know that they recently knocked Optus off its perch to get the number 2 position right? The difference is that both Telstra and Optus are much much bigger companies (they both deal with landlines seriously and are mobile phone providers) while iiNet only deals with internet.
All that isn't to say that I disagree with the sentiment in your post - the fact that they calculated a player major enough to be seen as important
Re: (Score:2)
When the MPAA et al filed this suit against iiNet, it was much smaller. Remember this bollocks has been going on for over three years.
How will this play out now? (Score:5, Informative)
Less likely to see digital distribution in AU now? (Score:1)
All aussies (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not sure why this was modded down. Probably by someone not familiar with the Aussie movie it came from. It is a quote made because of a victory in the High Court, so kinda relevant here.
Can someone mod this up?
ISPs are like phone companies (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
If the phone companies see that people want to do this and deliberately adjust their business plan to accomodate, for example by increasing the frequency bandwidth to match music quality and providing phones into which you can plug your iPod, then yes, they will fall under some law regarding profiting or aiding.
It comes down to proportion, which is why MegaUpload have legal problems and Google don't. However to my mind internet access is so crucial to modern life that it's impossible to separate the legal/
A Sensible Decision (Score:1)
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
Don't be overjoyed yet... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Don't be overjoyed yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm an Australian author (plug: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006RZNR3Y/ [amazon.com] ) who relies exclusively on digital sales and I strongly oppose any such fucking with our legal system.
Go away, AFACT. Nobody wants you to exist. Not the politicians. Not the voters. Not the readers (listeners/viewers/etc). Not the content creators.
Nobody.
AFACT serve only the Hollywood industry who is so inept and out of touch with what's going on around them that they senselessly blunder into things like this. They are dicks and their defeat in court -- an utterly humiliating and complete defeat where they had to pay all of iiNet's costs -- makes me cackle with glee.
Beginning of the end! (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
You make your own whenever you want.
In other news YouTube lose case in Germany (Score:3)
Copyright vs Patent Hypocrisy (Score:2)
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 w
Re:Great news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 tha
Re:Great news (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Internode (Score:2)
I did find it... interesting that my broadband quota dropped five-fold (150GB/mth to 30GB/mth) soon after the sale to iiNet.
Re:Great news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great news (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Great news (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Great news (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Great news (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
encrypt everything, yes?
Nofbyhgryl!
Re: (Score:2)
Ah - PHB encryption [dilbert.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
That or the government is the terrorist.