Australian Courts Make Life Hard For Dallas Buyers Club Copyright Owner 25
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.
*shrugs* (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Business not changed... (Score:2)
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 pos
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's the point of a bond (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.
Re:That's the point of a bond (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ironic, considering the movie plot (Score:5, Insightful)
...about a guy frustrated with bureaucracy, restrictions, etc on obtaining AIDS drugs who basically becomes his own AIDS drug dispensary.
Dallas Buyers Club? (Score:3)
Is this Dallas Buyers Club as in the movie (with the company holding the copyright named after the movie?), or some other entity?
Re: (Score:1)
Dallas Buyers Club Inc.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeh because the general public can be trusted to elect quality candidates, ROTFLMAO.