Australian ISP Argues For BitTorrent Users 207
taucross writes "Australian ISP iiNet is making a very bold move. They are asking the court to accept that essentially, BitTorrent cannot be used to distribute pirated content because a packet does not represent a substantial portion of the infringing material. They are also hedging their bets purely on the strength of the movie studios' 'forensic' evidence. This ruling will go straight to the heart of Australia's copyright law. At last, an ISP willing to stand up for its customers! Let's hope we have a technically-informed judge."
Lets hope they win, but how is important too (Score:5, Interesting)
Cobden for iiNet - "You aren't the boss of me"
Bannon for Studios - "We told them to stop letting people do bad things, and they didn't do what we told them!"
Apparently there is speculation over whether iiNet will try to argue that packets of data are not a substantial portion of a work, or maybe that the one to one nature of bittorrent isn't the same as a public dissemination, but personally I hope that they establish first that the studios don't have a right to just shut people down by accusation and then argue the technicalities that might get them off. I think that the arguments that it isn't piracy are much weaker than the arguments that the Studio's lawyers do not representive a duely appointed government representative.
Won't work. (Score:4, Interesting)
iiNet are going to fall flat on their face with this argument.
Sue the electricity companies too (Score:3, Interesting)
The studios should then sue the electricity companies for providing electricity to people's DVD burners.
Re:Objectivity (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a big difference here that you are missing .....
They are not arguing for the individual users. They are arguing for Bittorrent.
As an analogy, you can use Xerox copy machines to photocopy an entire book. The RIAA, MPAA, and so forth have in effect been going after Xerox for copyright infringement. The single act of copying a single page does not constitute copyright infringement while copying an entire book does.
Thus the copyright infringement occurs through the actions of the user not the actions of the company who built the copy machine or the software used to transmit a file. Similarly, Ford, Chevy, Ferrari, Porsche, are not sued when someone speeds, crashes and hurts someone. The driver is at fault not the auto companies.
Re:SO if I (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, except for that pesky little thing of being in receipt of infringing goods.
I'm not aware that this is actually against (U.S.) law.
Its usually only used against pawn shops that buy hot goods and don't finger(print) their customers, or against someone who buys something that "fell off the back of a truck". They don't tend to prosecute those duped into buying the merchandise (ignorance of the crime isn't ignorance of the law), but neither do they remunerate the duped for relinquishing the evidence either--that would be a civil matter between customer and illegal vendor.
I hope they have better arguments in court (Score:3, Interesting)
The page-a-day analogy is a good one. It really shows how weak the argument/defense is, and I really hope they have something better for their day in court. Otherwise they're just opening up the BitTorrent community to a general attack at the ISP level.
Wrong defense (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are these considered a "good" to begin with? (Score:2, Interesting)
Just a quick thought,
Copyrights can only be applied to goods, I believe, right? If this is the case, then why is IP of this nature even copyrighted to begin with?
It would, in my eyes, seem to be more of a service than anything. By purchasing a legal copy of a movie online to download, I'm receiving nothing physical for what I payed for. It's not a good.
I am, however, being provided with the service of entertainment.
Can services be copyrighted?
If I were to go down the street, find a street performer and start to copy him (See: Eurotrip [isohunt.com], silver "robot"), and other people were to start paying me, would that be considered copyright infringement? Can he copyright his "act" to begin with?
Maybe I misunderstand something, but this seems messed up to begin with...
Wait a second. (Score:2, Interesting)
I am all for ISPs standing up for the rights of their users, but I call bullshit on this one.
Bittorrent CAN be used for copyright infringement, just like a photocopier. Just because it CAN be used for illicit purposes doesn't mean that it always is. I have downloaded several Linux distributions using Bittorrent.
It's one thing to say "No, we're not giving you any information about our subscribers without proof." It's quite another to pretend that it's not possible to do something that we all know is.
LK