Hollywood Muscles Aussie ISPs Over Movie Downloading 350
Tenaka Kahn writes "Whirlpool is reporting that American movie companies are using a company (MediaForce) to try and muscle Aussie ISPs into disconnecting users who indulge in movie sharing."
Not only that, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Proving once again that U.S. government and businesses recognize no boundaries, CNN [cnn.com] (among others) carries tidings [cnn.com] of U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson refusing to drop a copyright infringement suit against Kazaa owner Sharman Networks Ltd. (based in Austrailia [cia.gov], incorporated in Vanuatu [cia.gov]) brought by the music (RIAA, no doubt) and movie (MPAA, also, no doubt) industries. Perhaps Sharman Networks spokeswoman, Kelly Larabee, should consider the fate of Manuel Noriega and how 21 million (where do they come up with these numbers?) americans are at risk of subversion by wanton music and movie swapping. Battle of the Coral
Re:Not only that, but... (Score:2)
Re:Not only that, but... (Score:2)
Can't stop it in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
Once again... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they cave though, then bullying becomes a legal and effective way of getting your way, and we're all screwed.
Re:Once again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, isn't this the basis of the legal system (as seen from big corporations)? Nothing new here, move along.
Re:Once again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Although a typo, this is in fact the essence of the truth: if we de-finance them -- if we stop giving money to companies that abuse our rights -- then those companies will go away, as money is their only weapon...
Re:Once again... (Score:2)
Re:Once again... (Score:2)
Once again... you assume too much. (Score:5, Insightful)
australia still has copyright law, and ISPs still tend to protect themselves by stating in their TOS that users who use the service to break a law are subject to termination of service. the majority of "hollywood" (read: major studio productions) are protected by international copyright, thus making it entirely legal and right for the american studio to inform the australian ISP of a user on their system violating copyright.
it's just as if you contacted an australian ISP and informed them of a user sending out SPAM. would you not expect the ISP to repremant the user, if not disconnect them entirely?
of COURSE the studios have legal clout. it's basic, every day copyright. you run a distribution system for movies protected by international copyright, you are breaking the law. this is not personal use. this is not fair use. this is an illegal distribution meant to subvert payment. framing it as anything else destroys every good-natured and honest approach to legal reasons for allowing filesharing. when you lie, you make a better case for filesharing to be illegal.
Re:Once again... you assume too much. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Once again... you assume too much. (Score:2)
not in civil cases. in both australia and the US, copyright is civil law.
If the authorities fail to do anything about it then the country can be sanctioned
let's say i hadn't mentioned the above. do you know how serious a move sanctions are? even with piracy, the studios still make money on units sold since no physical property is being stolen with filesharing. a sanction disconnects that country from the distribution network, ending all potential sales.
Re:Once again... you assume too much. (Score:2, Redundant)
well, one of the great things about law is that they still leave a lot of room for people to break the law in privacy. it's called intent to distribute, and when it doesn't exist, penalties are much lower than when it does. in the case of copyright, without intent to distribute, you'll do pretty OK under the umbrella of fair use. the problem here is that you're making the work available for distribution, instantly making a case for intent to distribute. even if nobody downloads it from you, you've still stepped outside of fair use.
the copyright owner doesn't need to prove you've distributed because you made it available for distribution. the minute a bootleg vendor extends the legs on his card table to set up shop on the street, he's breaking the law.
as for the power of copying/lending in terms of promotion, that's an entirely other conversation. are we discussing what the law is, or what the law should be?
Re:Once again... you assume too much. (Score:2)
Besides, copyright infringement does not require intent beyond intent to take the action that results in infringement. It does require knowledge, and there is such a concept as innocent infringement. However, even innocent infringement is a mitigating defense: it doesn't get you off the hook, just limits the extent of your liability.
Re:Once again... you assume too much. (Score:2)
Australia is not the USA.
Then again you assume too much (Score:5, Insightful)
These buffoons in their airconditioned offices with their window views are going to have to put in a full days work to make a difference here.
Any ISP worth their salt will not give these people any personal details. They will also know that they cannot take action against the user without some proof or some order from a local authority.
If Media Force wants to get into Australia they are going to have to stop sending worthless e-mail s and speak to local Australian law enforcement. Learn local laws and try and take this to offenders properly.
In reality they won't do that. They are going to just sit back and send their worthless e-mails and collect their fat cheques from Warner etc. No big days work coming out of Media Force, I'll wager.
The good news is that at some point the Record mafia will realise how inneffective these stupid upstart companies are and will drop them.
They will go broke and hopefully go back to loan sharking or selling snake oil.
Re:Once again... you assume too much. (Score:3, Informative)
you are 100% incorrect.
please brush up: http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G010.p
Re:Once again... you assume too much. (Score:4, Informative)
Clearly the person you replied to was confused about the meaning of 'illegal' vs. 'criminal', else they would not have said that the civil courts deal with it.
This has some basis in law. Compare the section of the Copyright Act 1968 dealing with civil actions [austlii.edu.au] to the section dealing with criminal offences [austlii.edu.au]. You will find that the criminal offences only deal with copyright infringement where there's money involved or where it occurs to an extent that will prejudicially affect the owner of the copyright. In other cases it is a civil, not criminal, matter.
The Australian Copyright Council also has an information sheet [copyright.org.au] on the topic.
Re:Once again... you assume too much. (Score:2)
the burden of proof lies on the copyright holder (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the point I want to make in a nutshell, and argue about it as you will:
nobody is violating copyright laws by simply "sharing" files. The only copyright infringers are the ones who download shared files without owning a license to those copyrighted works.
In other words, in order to break the law, one must download a copyrighted, non-free file that you don't have the rights to use. When the RIAA or MPAA claims you are breaking the law, they are bluffing - they have no way to ascertain whether you've actually got a license to use the files you share, and they have no idea whether you're downloading files which you don't have rights to.
Note that this whole argument took place many years ago when the VCR first came into popular use.
Re:the burden of proof lies on the copyright holde (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the point I want to make in a nutshell, and argue about it as you will:
nobody is violating copyright laws by simply "sharing" files. The only copyright infringers are the ones who download shared files without owning a license to those copyrighted works.
In other words, in order to break the law, one must download a copyrighted, non-free file that you don't have the rights to use. When the RIAA or MPAA claims you are breaking the law, they are bluffing - they have no way to ascertain whether you've actually got a license to use the files you share, and they have no idea whether you're downloading files which you don't have rights to.
The only way this could possibly be true is if you have the right to distribute the material, which you don't. Owning an MP3 can be perfectly legal, provided you own the CD and ripped it yourself. But that in no way implies you have the right to distribute that MP3 to anyone else. It is legal for you to have an play, but illegal for you to distribute to other people, even if you believe they own the CD, since it was determine all MP3s aren;t equal, you only legally are entitled to the MP3s ripped directly from your CD. So in essense, the law is being broken twice. Once by the person downloading the material, but also by the person distributing material they have no right to distribute.
Re:Once again... (Score:3, Funny)
When are the American people going to start using their rightfully owned "arms" for what they are supposedly owned for?
Make a list of all Americans who are taking away your rights and start killing them.
This gun loving, fear nation keeps spewing out rhetoric about owning guns "just incase our government turns tyranical", WELL GUESS FUCKING WHAT?!
You gunna USE them or what? No, I didn't think so, you're not scared of your government, you're scared of your neighbour because you've been brought up by CNN.
Re:Once again... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it (bullying) is already a very effective tactic.
There is a mechanism at work here: a company can communicate with anyone it wants to and threaten to seek a legal remedy if any exists in the target nation's legal system.
If any of the target companies/individuals don't give in to the demand, two things can happen:
1. The corporation can walk away, having scared all, some or none of the target ISP's.
2. They can make good on the threat of legal action.
Walking away after even partial success entails the company's having worked wonders for the price of a few emails written by people they have on salary. Essentially, it costs them nothing.
Corollary: defending billions in revenues can cost very little money.
Making good on the threat closes down an avenue of access--remember that carnival game with the gophers and the hammer--for 'pirates,' 'liberators,' 'guys-who-feel-hosed-by-overpricing,' etc., while simultaneously proving to any onlooker who wasn't scared before that a multibillion-dollar organization has a long reach.
Corollary: Even given a suit with no imaginable merit, a court system will go through the motions forcing the companies and individuals to spend money--at the very least, in answering motions and summonses to court.
Corollary 2: with a legal staff in place, a lawsuit is a minor expense for a large enough company that can easily bankrupt an ordinary citizen or smaller company.
We won't even talk about what happens when the corporation is big enough to get the U.S. government involved...
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
From the article. . . . illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)
How did anyone else other than the ISP get the IP addresses? For this company to get this information, they have to be doing some sort of spying. Obviously this is only taking place in AUS because these people could not get away with it here.
Re:From the article. . . . illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Every packet in the stream contains both the source and destination IP addresses. All they need to do is position themselves somewhere on the KaZaa (or other similiar network), what for the location of searches for files. I doubt that they actually check that files are being downloaded. They probably have problems telling exactly what is downloaded.
This is just bullying tactics. Piracy of all media has been around for so long and has been impossible to police. What makes RIAA and Time Warner etc believe that they can control it now. Shut down another file sharing network - that'll stop them - it worked when they shut down Napster. right?
Surely the funds they are pumping into this type of policing/checking (especially for the RIAA) would be much better of pushed towards the Artists.
Re:From the article. . . . illegal? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:From the article. . . . illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Start up Kazza (lite), start downloading a file.
Open up a command line and run netstat
You get the IPs you are downloading from clearly displayed.
Now track those IPs via RIPE, ARIN and APNIC and you know the ISP, send legal letter, then errr, profit?
Re:From the article. . . . illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/
The news are wrecking havoc over at Neowin.net a.t.m.
Basically, they infect your computer & sends back lists of your files to the RIAA.
Anyone... (Score:2, Interesting)
But the company does not just monitor copyright violations, it encourages ISPs to block or restrict file sharing ports on their services. It is also distributes 'decoy' files via file sharing networks which look like real music and video files, but are in fact garbled data.
It creates invalid Win32 filenames you have to delete through the command line...
Track by IP ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tracking by IP address is becoming more and more useless all the time. You can basically just wardrive around your neighborhood until you find an open network, and then download all your warez from there. Who will get in trouble? Not you!
Some people can even connect to other networks without leaving their own house (some California houses are really close together). You could even target someone to get in trouble just by using their open network (they might have thought they were being generous).
Re:Track by IP ? (Score:2)
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:Track by IP ? (Score:2)
Not that it matters.... (Score:2)
Re:Not that it matters.... (Score:2)
Why are they bothering? (Score:5, Informative)
With 1 GB or 3 GB transfer caps, and very expensive per MB charges for data transfers in excess of this, Australian broadband users are hardly likely to be sharing any movies.
Re:Why are they bothering? (Score:2)
There are some other options [on.net].
I'm not associated, just a satisfied customer.
Re:Why are they bothering? (Score:2)
Re:Why are they bothering? (Score:2, Informative)
Telstra (Australia's telco monopolist) sells plans like this, but Telstra are required by law to allow other ISPs to access their infrastructure. These other ISPs have some much better plans, ranging from a 16GB + Shaping afterwards [iinet.com.au] to a Unlimited download with QoS prioritising when pipe is under heavy load [on.net]. Both these ISPs offer unmetered upload.
So large file sharing is very much alive and well in Australia. (The iiNet plan also allows unlimited P2P traffic within your own state, I believe)
Re:Why are they bothering? (Score:2, Informative)
Mediaforce blows (Score:2)
Re: fake files (Score:2)
Re: fake files (Score:2)
Re: fake files (Score:2)
Well, that would come as a shock.
Thanks ... (Score:3)
Thanks ... from now on, I'll just have to get my copyrighted materials from a reputable pirate.
Re:The nerve! (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually like the decoys [duckdecoys.com], and am surprised those here who profess to respect copyright don't also. Points:
It's not entrapment; the "victim" goes in with a predisposition to pilfer copyrighted music, and the gov't isn't involved anyway. Perhaps the victim could say they weren't aware the material was copyrighted, but really, they were saved from committing an offense. Wasted bandwidth? Direct consequence of the pirate's misdeed. Deception? Yes, and entirely legal, even just. The best argument against it is merely ethical, that the decoys are (maybe) interfering with fair use, if fair use can be stretched that far. Perhaps also the bogus files clog up the P2P network by spilling into legitimate searches, but I'd like to see evidence of it first.
It's a shame, really, that piracy has to break up things like Napster, and perhaps soon Kazaa et al. It ruins the fun for the rest of us and hobbles a promising technology. The pirates should be recognized as partners with industry in bringing these down. Without the infringement the industry would have nothing to take to court, eh?
So, load 'em up.
socialist legal help (Score:4, Informative)
I imagine that about now, a whole bunch of small Aussie ISPs are pooling some cash for legal advice on exactly what they are liable for. IANAL, but such things as "common carrier" provisions, "Fair Use" and so forth are not the same as in the US. For instance, you can't tape television shows [copyright.org.au] on your VCR in Australia. (warning: PDF links abound).
More info on Australian copyright law is available from the Australian Copyright Council [copyright.org.au]. Interesting links:
Re:socialist legal help (Score:2)
It's OK to tape, say the live broadcast of the cricket, to watch at a time when I'm actually home. But it's not OK to tape the ads, that occur after every over...
So I can tape it to view later, but I have to be there to press pause all the time
Muscled? (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a look here [usu.edu] for a sample. This is what the ISP received, most likely.
Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
There really isn't anything that MediaForce can do. Their issue is with the user, not the ISP. I'm sure the ISP will be willing to answer any subpoena requests, but the idea of the ISP seriously thinking about disabling a customer because of one of these notices is silly.
Ask anyone who is in the right place at a big ISP. They'll tell you they get hundreds of these.
Adam
Re:Muscled? (Score:2)
Re:Muscled? (Score:2)
declaration of war ? (Score:2)
Re:declaration of war ? (Score:2)
This is a declaration of war, but not by the United States. This declaration was made by the entertainment cartel against all others. Look at how they are trying to corrupt the governments to take away the freedoms of their citizens. Soon we may no longer have the right to freely use such things as computers, telephones and the internet.
People of the world unite! We must defend ourselves!
Re:declaration of war ? (Score:2)
However, in this situation, it is harder to tell. When you illegally download a file from a computer in another country, under whose jurisdiction do you fall? The issue is that 1) MediaForce has no legal right to enforce the laws 2) In a case like this, which court/set of laws apply?
You are right, this is a part of globalization. However, even in globalization, a country must and still remain sovereign and be able to enforce its own laws.
According to .au law (Score:2, Informative)
The Guide to the Digital Agenda Act 2000 [dcita.gov.au] -- Australia's
version of the DMCA -- could be useful in clarifying who is responsible for
policing this sort of thing.
There is one interesting bit in
particular:
ISPs and carriers
The Act
also clarifies the liability of telecommunications carriers and carriage service
providers, including Internet Service Providers (ISPs). These groups are not
liable for infringing material communicated via their facilities, unless they
have control over the content of the material, (eg if they administer the
website themselves), or they authorise an infringing act by another (eg their
subscribers). The key factors in determining whether they have authorised an
infringement include:
* the ability to prevent the
infringement;
* the relationship with the infringer;
* the steps
taken to avoid infringement; and
* compliance with any relevant industry
codes of practice
in otherwords
tough shit RIAA
Actual phone call from Warner Brothers (Score:4, Funny)
ISP: Ummm... Well, we're going to have to get back to you on that.
Warner Bros: While we're on the phone, would it be possible to send Steven Case to you guys via air mail? We don't want him.
ISP: Ummm... No.
Warner Bros: He may be useless, but he doesn't eat much. Please?
ISP: Goodbye.
*click*
Warner Bros: Never a break...
Why would Warner Brothers care? (Score:3, Funny)
What is wrong with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What is wrong with this? (Score:3, Informative)
Distributing a copy of a movie *to others who do not own a copy* is a copyright violation.
(This is clearly stated in "My Own Book Of Laws As They Should Be".)
Re:What is wrong with this? (Score:2)
May I ask where that set of laws has any legal standing?
Re:What is wrong with this? (Score:3, Informative)
Inviting people to watch a movie with you in your living room is fine.
Charging people to watch movies at your house is not.
Putting a movie on a P2P network so that others can make copies of it also is not. Of course, that will almost certainly be viewed as distribution by a court, so maybe it doesn't come under your meaning.
Making copies for friends also is not ok in most parts of the world. The United States does allow people to make copies of audio recordings that can be shared on a limited basis, but that ain't movies.
Re:What is wrong with this? (Score:2)
So sending letters to ISPs is probably useless, unless they are spineless cowards. My ISP happens to refuse to even consider action based on accusations alone. If they want to boot a user, present logs with abuse or go to the police.
In other news.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, i don't know where that came from, but i hope this brings a new perspective to things.:)
Scary, really Scary, very very Scary! (Score:5, Insightful)
Did any one catch that? First of all, it is unfortunate that they are considering to abide... but that is not the scary part. The scary part is that Australian ISPs are seeking legal advice to check whether US companies have any jurisdiction in Australia!!!!!. Naturally, there are few lawyers here, but isn't it obvious that regardless of how big or scary a company is, it has no jurisdiction outside of US. Nothing in US has jurisdiction outside of US (besides the army maybe...)
Re:Scary, really Scary, very very Scary! (Score:4, Insightful)
Dont you mean: Japanese (Sony), German (BMG), and French (Vivendi) as well as U.S. companies. This is not a case of the US sailing a carrier battle group into Sydney harbor and demanding satisfaction, this is pretty standard stuff. I bet you weren't complaining too hard when the EU sued Microsoft for monopolistic practices. If you don't don't like big multinational corporations that's fine, lots of people including myself share your opinion - just leave your uninformed anti-Americanism out of the discussion.
Re:Scary, really Scary, very very Scary! (Score:3, Interesting)
Your analogy is somewhat flawed, however. EU sued Microsoft for monopolistic practices *in Europe*. Not in US. I would be surprised in EU were to sue MS for monopolistic practices in US...
I am not anti-American, but I think US is the only country that tends to think its jurisdiction reaches anywhere in the world (Name Sklyarov comes to mind)
Re:Scary, really Scary, very very Scary! (Score:2)
Skylarov decison aside, any country is welcome to convict anyone for crimes against their laws and property.
That person would then have to weigh whether or not to vacation there.
Further, companies who do business in a particular country have the right to play the games. While I'm strongly against peer to peer sharing of copyrighted material, I find it sweet that AUS would laugh such heavy handed tactics out of town.
Re:Scary, really Scary, very very Scary! (Score:2)
Hardly necessary, they'd just have to ask the Australian government nicely. Our representatives like the feeling of being buttfucked.
Incidentally, the USS Abraham Lincoln has been sitting in Fremantle (other side of the country from Sydney) for a couple of weeks now..
Re:Scary, really Scary, very very Scary! (Score:2)
Well considering the Aussies have tried the same tactics on the US how far fetched is it really? This ruling [nbr.co.nz] was the reult of the Aussies wanting to sue Dow Jones for an article hosted on a US webserver for libel because it was viewable in Australia... of course the US courts basically told them to shove it after the ruling though, just like the Aussies should do here
Re:Scary, really Scary, very very Scary! (Score:2)
wrong. wrong wrong wrong. major motion pictures are nearly universally registered under international copyright, and australia has MUCH stricter copyright law in terms of television and cinematic media. these studios have every right, jurisdiction, and cause to request that ISPs follow their TOS and not allow their users to engage in illegal activities.
I've got another idea (Score:3, Funny)
In case the RIAA feels left out, do your MP3 collection too. Of course, the RIAA coud poison the stream as it were by encoding the "Stallman Sings" MP3s, but that might be a little too evil, even for them.
I bet you could even make it rather difficult to track origin of the CDs down (Corner post box 3 states over, anyone?)
Of course, I don't pirate (Really!) I just like not having to shuffle through 50 or 60 CDs every time I want to listen to one specific song in the collection. I am also offended by the fact that the potential of the technology to deliver any content to my home any time I want to view it is being slaughtered by the *AA in the name of protecting their outdated business model. If there'd been a Horse Buggy Association of America 100 years ago, we'd still be riding in horse drawn carriages today.
Blacklist... (Score:2, Interesting)
Zdnet Australia has a follow up (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/security/story
One interesting quote:
"Brendan Scott, a lawyer with Gilbert and Tobin, said it was uncertain whether MediaForce could bring legal proceedings against an Australian ISP. "The reason I say maybe is that the law prohibits reproduction and distribution to the public, but, from memory, doesn't directly impose obligations on third parties," he said."
So, mediaforce is probably going to have to go after the users one by one...
Relevant Information on MediaForce... (Score:3, Interesting)
4.23.190.*, 65.247.105.* (matching *.regional-one.net hostnames), and 65.215.219.*
They have another netblock 208.251.137.0/24, as well.
MODUS OPERANDI - The "Decoys" are described briefly at http://www.mediaforce.com/services/mediadecoy.asp
The description they give their MediaDecoys exactly describes what we call a Denial of Service attack. They're boasting that their decoys are capable of flooding an alleged copyright infringer with requests to prevent anyone else from downloading from them. Such an action is unambiguously illegal in many states, and this company is doing it all without actually verifying that the person is offering AND sending a copyrighted work. They're taking blatantly abusive action against people that haven't been proven to be violating any laws.
The decoys that we see on IRC essentially do the following (discovered by watching their activity from the viewpoint of the irc server itself):
1) after connecting to an irc server, issue a LINKS command, presumably to discover more irc servers to connect to
2) occasionally do a LIST to get lists of large public channels
3) join the discovered channels and watch for activity
4) if there are any public fserves advertising in the channel, the decoy first attempts to do a public trigger to activate the fserve and get a list of files being shared from it
5) if the channel is moderated the decoy attempts to trigger the fserve directly via private msg or ctcp, or does a standard XDCC LIST. No files are actually requested or downloaded
6) after 2 or 3 minutes of no fserve advertisements, the decoy leaves the channel and continues searching for more.
7) the decoys watch channel activity for mentions of any other channel names (channels that are 'private' and don't show up in the public channel list), and attempt to join those channels as well.
8) a few (not many) of these decoys have also been observed sending XDCC LIST commands to other clients that simply have 'dcc' in their nicknames.
Nobody has observed these decoys actually downloading anything, so it baffles me how they can assume that the files being advertised are the actual files being sent if a person COULD download the file, or even assume that the person is in fact SENDING any files. In addition, if there are other decoys on the network whose sole purpose was to launch some sort of attack against irc clients sharing files (as described on the page mentioned above), we haven't found them yet.
Hope this clears a few things up about how their decoys work and what to watch for.
Max, the webspider monkey says "MediaForce Sucks!" [mediafarce.com]
This is not the way to fight Hollywood! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, there are some people who respond to threats. In Australia we have had a number of ISPs that have failed to honour the contracts they have made with their customers out of fear of litigation. This kind of yellow belly behaviour is common where the threatened feels no respect for those who will suffer from their complacency. These are the people we need to report.
If you have had your account removed or your service disconnected by your ISP, please report it!
It is the responsibility of our freedom loving society to avoid service providers who fail to protect that freedom. If each of us take notice of these reports and boycott those ISPs that fail to protect us, then maybe we can affect real change.
Re:This is not the way to fight Hollywood! (Score:2)
Australia is no rebel on copyright, and I doubt it is eager for other nations to disregard its IP. I would be pissed at the strong-arming (though this letter looks relatively mild to me) but not dispute the underlying rights violations, assuming for the moment they are true.
It's not automatically thuggish to stick up for your rights. It's thuggish to abuse those rights, or try to overextend them. But it's also thuggish to ignore the rights of others.
Re:This is not the way to fight Hollywood! (Score:2)
Were these treaties created mainly by nation states or mainly by transnational publishing corporations. "Hollywood" is hardly, in practice, confined to California, USA.
Re:This is not the way to fight Hollywood! (Score:2, Interesting)
you say this as if having sole control of distribution and copyright of your work is a bad thing. of course it's a legally sanctioned monopoly, it's called copyright.
In Australia we have had a number of ISPs that have failed to honour the contracts they have made with their customers out of fear of litigation.
you mean the part of the contract that states users may not use the service provided to engage in unlawful behaviour?
It is the responsibility of our freedom loving society to avoid service providers who fail to protect that freedom.
please. protecting freedom doesn't apply here. tilting at windmills because someone's trying to make it less convenient for you to subvert payment on merchandise is not protecting freedom. you never had the freedom in the first place.
Re:This is not the way to fight Hollywood! (Score:3, Interesting)
There is such a thing as fair use.
you mean the part of the contract that states users may not use the service provided to engage in unlawful behaviour?
It is unfortunate that most people don't read terms of service before they enter into these agreements. It is more unforunate that some do read these agreements and think they are ok. My ISP is my carrier, they are not my moral (or legal) guardians. They provide me with a service, if I choose to do something unlawful with that service then, no, they do not have the right to discontinue my service. The copyright holder has the right to sue me, and seek damages, my ISP is an unrelated third party.
please. protecting freedom doesn't apply here.
It does. It is my freedom to use the services that I have paid for in the way that I see fit. When my ISP refuses to provide me with that service out of fear of litigation then my freedom is being stiffled, without even the involvement of a court.
Oops! (Score:2, Funny)
Dear Sirs,
I appreciate your concerns regarding our user's private behavior on their own accounts. Your opinion is very important to us.
We are afraid, however, that your letter was mistakenly sent to the wrong continent.
Sincerely,
The Abuse Team
I'm an Aussie (Score:2, Interesting)
Secondly, Optus speed-caps ports like those used with many P2P apps (I get a max of about 7K/s on Grokster).
Thirdly, Optus runs spiders that check the network and block connectivity on odd ports with a large amount of traffic travelling over them, for a limited time (half hour on, half hour off).
Now, MediaForce - I fail to see how they can monitor Hotline transfers and discriminate between movies and other files [unless they're sniffing every packet that travels through a backbone and reading the header/footer of every file - yeah right] without some pretty awesome and illegal technology.
Personally I use Haxial software (encrypted Hotline, basically).
This is all a load of crap, I must say. Scare tactics, nothing more. Not only does MediaForce have zero legal muscle in Australia, but they don't know jack either. I call their bluff.
Re:I'm an Aussie (Score:3, Informative)
......http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/30647
Its the spelling.. (Score:2, Funny)
Also can someone please point out to these idiots that the DMCA doesnt apply under AUStralian Law.
Doing the right thing. Sort of. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I do have a problem with is a bunch of arrogant american fuckwits, obviously blinded by the sunshine that comes out of their mate's asses, who think they have the right to force THEIR laws on others. Here's an idea assholes, if you're going to tell people in other countries how to run their god damn lives, take 5 minutes, 5 MINUTES to find the relevant australian law to go after them with.
Re:Doing the right thing. Sort of. (Score:2)
But they aren't going after the users. They are going after the ISPs and trying to coerce them into dropping whichever user the cartel doesn't like. Going after the users would entail gathering evidence and either suing the user or having them arrested.
If the cartel would have done this first off, 90% of the users would've stopped doing it even if only a few people were sued or convicted. What did they do? They said they wouldn't even try to touch the "fans" (the ones who broke the law). Instead, they tried to go after universities for supplying internet access to students and those who made software which could transfer files over a network.
Imagine if retail stores acted this way. First they'd try to sue backpack and car manufacturers because shoplifters can use these things to carry stolen goods. They also wouldn't even try to prosecute these shoplifters under the law--calling them "valued customers." The lawsuits don't work, so they try to get legislation passed which requires all cars have "inventory detection systems" in them which won't allow you to put anything into your car unless it has a special electronic tag from a store saying it was purchased legally. It wouldn't allow you to put bread you baked yourself into your own car, but they don't care. It just means more sales for them. That bill goes down in flames, so they concoct another one that gives them permission to beat customers with sticks if a security guard suspects that person may be shoplifting. That probably isn't going to pass, so they decide to visit apartment buildings and say things like: "we think the people in apartment # 1234b may have shoplifted something from our store. Please evict them now or we sue the building's owner for contributory theft."
Maybe they did have something on Napster because the whole intent of the thing did seem to be to distribute copyrighted works without permission of the owner. Contributory infringement could have happened in that specific case, but they should not have been given any court time until they at least tried to go after the primary infringers.
This started early in 2002 (Score:2)
which tree to bark up? (Score:2, Insightful)
What have the achieved by making the ISP close the users account? Inconvenience? Not a whole lot more.
Now, if MediaForce forgot about bothering ISP's and went after the actual people who infringed on the copyright then they might be actually doing something which will bring them closer to their Ultimate Goal.
They want to chop the tree down (Score:2)
Ahhh, but you assume their Ultimate Goal is to stop copyright infringement. Maybe their goal is to take over the internet. Suing and disrupting the operations of innocent third parties (such as ISPs and developers of communication software) certainly helps with that goal.
under penalty of perjury (Score:2)
Yes, they legally state that they really do work for the copyright holder. Wow.
Now look at these sections:
We have received information that an individual has utilized the above-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of the above-mentioned work through a "peer-to-peer" service.
Yes, an anonomous little birdy whispered it in their ear.
we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by Warner Bros
A good faith belief is nothing more than a suspicion and a lack or malicious intent. They are saying there's a good chance they are completely wrong.
we hereby state that we believe the information in this notification is accurate
Uh, yeah, like we think it's right or something. Maybe. Unless it isn't. Don't quote me on it in court.
They are requesting assistance and asking the ISP's do cut people off and requesting a response. I'm no laywer but I'd suggest the Australian ISP's simply decline the requests.
-
Moral of the Story (Score:4, Interesting)
Record/Movie Biz - Stop the witch-hunt before public opinion turns on you. Copyright is an abridgement of free press and speech... What the people gave you, we have the power to take away... Find ways to lower costs and make getting new music easy... and for God's sake MARKET DECENT MUSIC and MOVIES. Most of the crap you've foisted on us is suitable only for MST3K or the soundtrack of a movie on MST3K... Come out with something NEW already (when the biggest movies of the year are based on an old novel and a comic book or are sequels, you aren't exactly pumping out the new ideas...)
Of course this wouldn't be an issue if.. (Score:3, Informative)
However, saying copyright is theft is factually inaccurate. Im going to quote someone more qualified than I on this though:
" This is not a matter of opinion, but rather of law. Copyright violation is a tort, i.e., a claimed business wrong that can be settled as a matter of civil law between the two parties. There are sundry defences and exceptions that might apply. One's local public prosecutors won't pay for the investigation or lawsuit -- because they do that only for matters of criminal law. Which brings us to:
Making a copy of an abstract property over which legislated monopoly exists does not qualify as "theft": Theft is a concept in _criminal_ law, under whose provisions it applies only to tangible property (and therefore not to [downloaded songs or movies]). Crimes are wrongful acts that are considered injurious to _society_, unlike civil torts, which are private disputes that can be settled in court. Criminal cases are underwritten and paid for by the state. Proof must be shown beyond any reasonable doubt, instead of a mere preponderance of the evidence (as in civil cases). The claimed victim can't get "damages", unlike in civil law -- as the dispute is between the accused and the state, not the accused and the claimed victim. Last, the accused can be imprisoned, instead of just being subject to monetary awards and court orders." Rick Moen (Linux Mafia - posted this on the rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan newsgroup about "theft" of an e-book. However, its applicability here is obvious.
Course, I tend to forget that the /. crowd likes to lean toward the everything should be free mentality and we all should live in Shangri La where everyone can get whatever they want without consideration of the people who actually created the product.
Finally, just because a company is based in the US it doesn't mean they have no legal complaint in other nations. Many companies hold both US and international patents and copyrights in other nations. With the economy being as global as it is doesn't only make sense to protect your property as much as possible in all of your markets?
Bitch all you want, but if these companies hadn't been publishing the movies/music all these years none of you would have anything to steal/share. This doesn't make those companies infallibe in my eyes but their actions don't make them the hand of the devil either. They are a business protecting their interests - just like you guys contacting ISPs to encourage them to do nothing are trying to protect yours.
Oddly enough though, I imagine if you were the president of one of those same companies I imagine your view would change pretty quickly. People are notoriosly willing to be careless with other peoples money.
Re:Moving out (Score:3, Funny)
Fortunately they'll be prepared. There is a protocol: RFC 1149 [ietf.org] and a sucessful test [linux.no] by a LUG in Norway.
Re:I hate this. (Score:3, Insightful)
What if you had another reason to use those ports, a reason they don't know about.[?]
Well, you could either convince your admin to open the port to you, or buy your own connection. You're in college to learn - unfettered net access is not a requirement.
Re:I hate this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hate this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I hate this. (Score:2)
Last year they didn't block any outbound ports and people abused the network, slowed down to less than modem speed on occasion. It's better this way, because it stops the bandwith hogs transferring more data than their hard disk could ever hope to store and it means the net's guaranteed to be nippy when I'm googling my way through coursework!
-Mark
Re:Nah, they're just bullying (Score:2, Insightful)
I challenged the sender (Mark Weaver) in both instances to provide proof that the user was in fact sharing what they were being accused of, and asked how it was being shared (irc, p2p, etc). I never got a human response back. It seems they're just shooting blindly at users and their ISPs, hoping that the ISP will disconnect the "copyright infringer" without questioning MediaForce's (apparent) authority.
MediaForce has NO RIGHT AT ALL to tell ISPs to terminate a user's account for only an alleged copyright violation, especially if such allegations don't conflict with the ISP's acceptable-use-policy. Even if the AUP has a "do not break any laws" clause, no laws have been broken until a conviction is handed down.
I'd say it's completely safe to ignore the form letters these bastards are spewing forth. It's nothing more than a scare tactic, and perhaps just something to show their copyright-holding clients that they're actually working for whatever they're charging for the "service".
Max, the webspider monkey says "MediaForce Sucks!" [mediafarce.com]
Re:Nah, they're just bullying (Score:2)
Re:How do you track P2P users? (Score:2)
Re:Reference to US laws (Score:2)
Most likely because they are sending out a form letter.