In AU, Film Studios Issue Ultimatum To ISPs 227
bennyboy64 writes "The Australian court case between the film industry and ISP iiNet drew to a close yesterday after the film studios issued an ultimatum: Take copyright responsibilities seriously or leave the industry. 'Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business.' iTnews has done a short one minute interview with iiNet's CEO Michael Malone as he left the court on the final day. Also on the final day, the judge dismissed the Internet Industry Association's involvement in the case."
Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Next stop, having DVD-Recorders and VCRs removed from the shelves of your local super store... you know... for providing a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes.
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, they aren't asking to stop providing internet. They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility. It is not ISP's responsibility to monitor for such activity, but they should deal with copyright notices when they are send one. Of course, IMO it should be courts decision.
But if we're going for analogies, lets at least keep them on the same level.
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, they aren't asking to stop providing internet. They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility. It is not ISP's responsibility to monitor for such activity, but they should deal with copyright notices when they are send one. Of course, IMO it should be courts decision.
But if we're going for analogies, lets at least keep them on the same level.
Wrong. To be fair, they are asking an entire industry to take on responsibilities for an entirely separate industry.
This would be akin to Gucci telling eBay it needs to police all of its auctions, rather than Gucci itself being required to police eBay's auctions.
It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Comparable to the recent trend of shifting the cost of supporting the users who buy your products - currently manifesting as "the inter-user support forum."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actions of entertainment industry go far beyond "shifting the cost" or even "sharing the cost".
Forums took over other support means because it is really faster and better. Being cheaper (to manufacturers) it is plain side-effect. In fact manufacturers in some industries still dismiss user support forums and insist on expensive support contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.
Not to mention the media industry is well known for making fraudulent claims. If I was an ISP I'd treat the notices as the spam they are.
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a bullshit attempt to Karma whore on Slashdot IMHO.
Karma whore? Anonymous Cowards can't karma whore.
You're doing it wrong.
Re:Oh really? (Score:4, Insightful)
More like holding gun manufacturers responsible for murders committed by firearms. Or holding the cutlery industry liable for stabbings, especially with kitchen knives. Or perhaps we should consider holding drain cleaner makers liable for poisonings by their products?
The movie industry wants to ignore the legitimate uses of the Internet because they wish us to believe that the harm they suffer from infringement entirely voids the legal use of the Internet?
I don't agree. Let's keep that idea out of the U.S. as long as possible, k?
Thieves.
Re: (Score:2)
It is most definitely not like holding gun manufacturers liable for murders, because our economy can do without guns now. Our economy cannot do without the internet.... It has literally pervaded into every big business in the world. No major industry can do without it. It is fundamental to the current operating of all current big business.
ISP's provide a simple service... or they should do. If my ISP want to regulate what I can and cannot download, I will leave it. That or encrypt, then it's au revoi
Re: (Score:2)
Our economy cannot do without the internet....
But out economy can do just fine without movies. Hm....
Re:Oh really? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, in Australia it probably can. There is a profitable domestic movie every 4 years or so, the rest of the time it is relying on imports. If the Australian film industry was to collapse, that would be just one less thing for the government to prop up. Sure, American studios film in Australia, but this has nothing to do with the Australian box office figures, which are going to be trivial either way. If people weren't watching moves, they would be spending their time and money on something else imported from America, it doesn't really have much effect in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
The movie studios should go after the company's that supply the electricity to power the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm downloading copyrighted material so what?
It's not my responsibility to make sure that everyone sending me data has the right to send me data.
If I'm downloading something from sky.com or NBC how do I know they've paid the royalties to the content creators?
If some site sends me data how do you know I even asked for it?
If someone starts firing a copy of some movie at a random port on my PC there's not even a grantee that I've asked for it.
The only thing I'm responsible for is what comes from my machine.
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, there is no way to verify if the copyright notice is legit. It's not the ISP's responsibility to verify it either. Thus notice -> garbage. Just like DMCA false claims, which have proven to be inaccurate.
So no, their responsibility does not rely on assuming that a copyright infringement claim is correct, or even to care.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the fish were listening to a region specific version of DeathKlok's Mermaider.
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
it *REALLY* is NOT a complex problem.
The problem is, today. it's easier and often cheaper to JUST GO AND SUE SOMEBODY FOR BAZILLIONS OF DOLLARS than pursue the issue in a straightforward and naturally legal manner.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone shoplifts and then goes home, does the auto manufacturer hear about it? How about the roads department? Perhaps the makers of the purse? NO?
If someone sets up a hydroponic marijuana growing operation in their basement, is the power company responsible for turning the growth lights off?
Is the phone company responsible for preventing conversations about robbing the bank? Are they an accessory to the crime if they fail? NO again?
The film studios need to talk to the people actually infringing just li
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
> They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility.
Why is it the ISPs responsibility? They don't work for the music industry, and last I checked copyright infringement for non-commercial use was still a civil matter. Therefore the ISP has precisely zero responsibility to do anything since the law doesn't require it.
What the music industry is asking is for the ISP to _spend_ money so the music industry _doesn't_ have to. If these cunts want to send their copyright notices then fine. Let them go to the courts, prove that $IP downloaded $LIST to a standard that the court requires and obtain a warrant to serve the notice directly. Let them PAY the ISP for their involvement, since the ISP is nothing but a carrier. They are trying to sidestep the due process because they know their evidence is flimsy and wouldn't stand up.
Essentially what they're asking to do now is increase the costs involved in running an ISP; costs which will be amortized across all customers and result in a more expensive service for everyone.
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to reply to my own post.
The department of motor vehicles is a good example. This is akin to asking the department to pass on infringement notices because somebody in a car was doing burnouts on my front lawn. You can actually do that in several ways. The only way that won't cost you money is involve the police on a destruction of property charge. If you want to access the DMV database you need a warrant and to pay money.
Why should ISPs be any different? They incur costs and if the music and film industries had to actually pay some of these costs they'd probably realise they're being greedy cunts and return to only chasing the bastards who _sell_ pirated films.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should an ISP have to do anything?
Responding to copyright claims is not their job or responsibility. They are a service provider.
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
They do deal with the notices, just not the way AFACT thinks they should, iiNet pass all infringment notices on to the WA police (who basically wipe their arse with them).
"Of course, IMO it should be courts decision."
Corporations often try and legislate through the courts. This is a test case of provisions in the AU-US free trade agreement, AFACT are attempting to establish a legal precedent to force ISP's to handle the notices the way AFACT wants them to. If our court agrees with AFACT's interpretation of the treaty then they will use that decision as a political wedge in other countries.
analogy does not fail if you fail to understand it (Score:2)
and you did.
the analogy is solid. spend a little more effort on understanding it, and you will succeed.
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Informative)
AFACT can stop abusing the legal system and fuck off. They have a procedure that allows them to inform an ISP of an infringement via a magistrate, the ISP will happily comply with the request and send the agreed details to the respective law enforcement agency. The fact that AFACT have sent 0 of these requests since they were introduced almost 10 years ago proves they really don't give a shit about the ISP, or due process.
An ISP is NOT a judicial body. Infringement Notices are not legal documents and AFACT is not Law Enforcement.
oh fuck off (Score:2)
he is not playing devil's advocate. for doing that there has to be a 'devil' in the equation you can point to. here, there is none.
the example of vcrs is as solid as it can be. they are also tools for copyright infringement, just like how cars are tools and accessories to bank robberies.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that VCR's (or the VHS tapes?) now come with that built in thing that doesn't let you record off of another input from a VCR or DVD.
Also, there is nothing stopping the Movie industry from attacking DVD-Recorders and VCR's, they simply haven't. I honestly think if they wanted to go up against DVD-Recorders they would have a good enough case to cause legislation forcing VCR Recorders to lock down the types of recording they can do.
Re:Oh really? (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios [wikipedia.org]
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's transfer this to postal service. You know, it's quite possible to send illegal copies of copyrighted works by mail. So if someone is accused to receive illegal copies of copyrighted works by mail, should the postal service stop delivering mail to him?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh really? (Score:4, Funny)
The funnier next step would be. Sony Vs. Sony. i.e. Sony (The Movie arm) Vs Sony (the tech arm that makes DVD recorders and provides the software to copy DVDs).
Re: (Score:2)
Or computers, hell, even the car you drive to the store to buy a blank DVDr.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's scary to think about what would happen if the Betamax case [wikipedia.org]
were being tried today. The geniuses in the movie industry did their best to kill VCRs for the home market on the basis that they "could be used for copyright infringement." Ruling that recording for the purpose of time shifting was fair use was pretty radical, as was finding that the manufacturers were not responsible for any infringement that does
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know, every time I see one of your analogies it makes me think of a pizza with a giant turd on it. A big steaming coiler, with extra peanuts.
Maybe it's a result of watching "Drawn Together", but I'd like to think it's more due to being exposed to the constant repetition of something which wasn't very funny to begin with.
Follow up pissy letters to DVR dealers, Myth TV... (Score:2)
...Etc in 3...2...1...
Pot calling the kettle black (Score:5, Insightful)
The court case between the NRLA (National Right to Life Association) and film industry drew to a close yesterday after the NRLA issued an ultimatum: Take copycat violent crimes responsibilities seriously or leave the industry. 'Businesses such as film industry want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of producing violent films and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said the NRLA's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that children is able to mimic. If they don't like having to deal with copycat violent crimes then they should get out of the business.'
ps. No, NRLA doesn't exist. I made that up.
Re: (Score:2)
ps. No, NRLA doesn't exist. I made that up.
Don't give him [wikipedia.org] any ideas.
Re:Pot calling the kettle black (Score:4, Funny)
I'm dyslexic, you've got an OCD, we could probably pitch this as a sitcom idea to one of those American networks.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility.
Actually, all business want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money by providing a product or service to customers, including the movie industry. But since when is it the responsibility of one business to protect the business interests of another business? Cars can be used to facilitate bank robberies, matches can be used to facilitate arson, photocopiers can be used to facilitate copyright infringement. Should car manufacturers and match manufacturers get out of their respective businesses if they aren't willing to help?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"So they come to court and say ‘this is our reasonable response'. That may be one thing," Bannon hypothesised.
v "But in circumstances where they do nothing, where they say they can't send a single notice to anybody....
I dislike the ridiculous
Re: (Score:2)
The comparisons you are making have nothing to do with the above either, in all of those cases the individual/company has purchased a product and is not providing a continuing service. You can buy a car and then never talk to the manufacturer/dealer of the car again, including if it needs repairs. An Internet connection is a continuing service relationship. You pay a company monthly (in most cases) for a connection. When it goes out, you contact your provider, and don't talk to a 3rd party shop, etc. Apples to oranges.
Ok. Many (in fact, most) manufacturers of photocopiers sell service contracts with their machines and therefore have an ongoing relationship with their customers. Should Xerox have to deal with a flood of infringement notices when their machines are used to copy sheet music?
Re: (Score:2)
All they are asking for is that when the infringed party reports copyright infringement, the ISP actually investigates it
Whoever sends such report must pay for the investigation. ISPs are business, not charity.
You pay a company monthly (in most cases) for a connection.
Yes, yes. I pay for the service. So why entertainment industry should get a free ride?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I hand you a subpoena and tell you it's for John Smith and he's one of your customers so I expect you to serve it but won't pay you to do so, you might toss it in the circular file as well. If I want it served, I can do it myself or hire someone to do it for me. I don't just get to recruit slave labor to do it, why should the studios be any different?
So... paper mills (Score:2, Insightful)
Dangerous thing paper. Can lead to all sorts of problems.
Same old song. (Score:2, Insightful)
Where's the ultimatum? (Score:2)
Same to you, buddy (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if they start taking their responsibility seriously and let those works pass into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time, AS WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT. Give us back our culture, damnit!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about if they start taking their responsibility seriously and let those works pass into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time, AS WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT. Give us back our culture, damnit!
Although I totally agree with your statement .. can we prefix it with the Studios having to make quality product in the first place?
And a pony too!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure I buy that argument - if the studios were only churning out unwatchable rubbish, then nobody would bother pirating it and this "problem" would go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting something for nothing is a bargain.
The auto industry creates death machines! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget all those cars loaded up hard drives full of pirated material.
Cars capable of carrying hard drives must be banned or the car companies should get out of the car business if they aren't going to take copyright seriously!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, so? It’s not the military-entertainment-industrial complex that makes the laws, but parliaments.
They can huff and puff all they want, but that does not make it force of law in any case.
Re:Yeah, so? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, so? It’s not the military-entertainment-industrial complex that makes the laws, but parliaments.
They can huff and puff all they want, but that does not make it force of law in any case.
Indeed. If they want a law, they'll have to buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, so? It’s not the military-entertainment-industrial complex that makes the laws, but parliaments.
And you think that all those MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions and outright lobbying of congress will not get laws passed (ie effectively *buying* laws).
They can huff and puff all they want, but that does not make it force of law in any case.
No it' s the THROWING MONEY AT THE LAWMAKERS which eventually makes it law.
Re: (Score:2)
You really believe that in a democracy it is the elected government that ultimately wields power?
How do you think that government got elected? You think that if the media corporations were against them, they'd stand a chance of being elected?
Next you will be saying that advertising doesn't work.
Get out of the industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Class-Action Lawsuit anyone? (Score:2)
It simply amazes me the arrogance of a company that can sit back and whine about shit like this while posting record numbers (and earnings) at the box office.
Perhaps a class-action lawsuit is in order the next time I waste $15 and two hours of my life on a really shitty movie. Sound utterly stupid? Yeah, so does a lot of shit feeding lawyers these days, like this story.
I agree with the recording industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they bother coming after a site that seems to only indulge nutbar conspiracy theories?
Maybe Alex Jones was really onto something! *rolls eyes*
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the ISPs should charge for handling DCMA notices. Is there any rule that says they can't? $1000 is excessive but $100 each is not. The ISP is not the one being charged with infringement. It is clear that the content industry is trying to transfer the burden of policing and negative publicity on to an innocent third party, the ISP. The content industry should not be allowed to shift this burden for free. If they want to pursue insane business strategies they can do it on their own dime.
The world
Re: (Score:2)
$1000 is excessive but $100 each is not.
Forwarding such note is a sure way to lose a customer. Part of that $1000 would be a compensation to ISP for the lost revenue. And also prevent frivolous abuse. (Think of it: $1000 is magnitude less than the punitive damages awarded to content industry *per infringement*, iirc $7500).
Re:I agree with the recording industry (Score:5, Insightful)
"Infringement Notices" are just an email, there is LITERALLY ZERO evidence that it is what it claims to be, or that it was sent by the parties it claims to have been sent by.
Therefore I could (trivially easily) fake an email to your ISP, claiming hundreds of infringements, and get your intertubes destroyed. EASILY. and EVERY TIME YOU MOVE ISPs, I could rain down upon you a never ending trail of destruction.
Wityh "infringement notices" as they stand today there is literally ZERO verification, ZERO evidence. You are expected to take SIGNIFICANT ACTION based on RUMOR AND HERESAY. This Is Effectively PRESUMPTION OF GUILT, WITH NEITHER JUDGE NOR JURY NOR RECORSE TO A COURT OF LAW.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like AV vendors profiting from virus writers and hackers?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they had to get $1000 per request, they would be profiting off of piracy.
You are taking it in silly direction.
Postal service (Score:2)
Next targets (Score:2)
So next will come shops that sell computers, and photo/video cameras ? Keep reasoning that way and dont stop till all lives in caves (or worse, after all, human brain can be used for copyright infringement purposes after all).
Of all disaster movies, alien/monster attacks, still have to see one where the copyright industry attacks and successfully destroy mankind, at least have more chances to happen than the arguments of mo
Will someone please call these jackasses' bluff? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The internet doesn't need film studios.
Can you even imagine internets without rabbid Star Wars fans or Trekkies?
What we're are going to photoshop then??
Post Office (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the post office responsible if I mail a copied DVD to someone?
Q.E.D.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not delude ourselves with intellectually dishonest arguments.
Fair Call, that's something the MUSIC/MOVIE industry already does well enough without us joining in.
..... then why are you badgering ISPs to be JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER?
This whole issue is a cop-out. The ISPs are merely low-hanging-fruit aka scapegoats.
If you have evidence that a law has been broken, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with that which DO NOT involve ISPs. If you do NOT have evidence
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying it's perfect, but it points out how this kind of rule is somewhat absurd. If the ISPs were directing customers to the illegal content, the argument would make perfect sense. But when acting as a simple data carrier, the argument doesn't hold water. You can't sue the post office. You can't sue AT&T because you called a scam company and told them your credit card. You can't sue Comcast because ABC news aired a report that upset you.
Now, it's illegal to use the post office for various crime
Re: (Score:2)
The post office never makes a copy, as it actually carries physical goods directly. Thus the post office could never be sued for breaching copyright when someone sends a DVD to his friend, and the fact that they are no being sued in this case has no
Re: (Score:2)
But the ISPs don't make copies either. The end servers do. The ISPs just transport things.
I'm not arguing that taking movies off the 'net without paying for them isn't copyright infringement. I'm just arguing that the ISPs aren't doing it, they're just in the middle.
hopeless (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I think the ISPs should fully agree (Score:4, Interesting)
We've known for quite some time that exposure actually CREATES sales, not reduces it. As it so happens, I just came back from a party where one discussion was "I got this copy of xyz, and I liked it so much I went and bought the album" - which happened to be an answer to someone who did buy a whole book series of an author after reading a library book.
If I were leading some kind of ISP club I'd call all of them and ensure that indeed NOBODY carries that traffic anymore - absolutely nobody. I'd give it 2 months before the media industry realises just how deep they've cut their own flesh. At that point discussions will become a lot more sensible. There is really no better way to nuke their business that indeed following what they want to do and let them feel the resulting pain. Because it will prove just how Pyrrhic that victory is.
So, if you hang together you will either end up with a more reasonable discussion, or they'll go bankrupt - which also not a bad thing IMHO, that's merely another bubble where bursting was long overdue.
I don't think piracy is good, but there are pirates and home users - the two are different. One type will become your client if you treat them well, the other type does things in volume and belongs in jail (and has been proven to go out of business if you lower margins).
If you stick your *customers* in jail for being interested in your product the results will be pretty obvious. In the US there already a whole generation growing up knowing people of their own age whose life has been destroyed by the RIAA. Do you really think they will EVER buy another record in their life?
I give it two months, maybe three.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do exactly the same thing, I don't think I have ever purchased a DVD that I have not seen first.
And the same advice goes for you (Score:2, Interesting)
The plain truth of the matter is that it isn't the ISP's problem. The problem belongs to the person who is harmed. Maybe it shouldn't but the world simply isn't fair like that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The mission of many pirate groups is to make their product so pervasive as to displace the "legal" products. You want to download a movie and the first hit on Google is the pirate site. They get ad revenue and that is all.
Yes, it is coming down to that.
Obligatory car comparison (Score:2)
'Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business.'
Could read like this:
'Businesses such as car manufacturers want to enj
Easy to Answer this Question (Score:2)
The side that owns the most politicians usually wins, unless public opinion is mobilized.
Nobody really gives a damn for people who want to unlawfully copy the work of others, so the outcome looks obvious.
Isn't it about time for "common carrier" status? (Score:2)
ISPs are not far off from phone companies in the sense that they just carry traffic. While it's true that there are presently games being played with port blocking, applications blocking and bandwidth limiting, if given the option of becoming a common carrier makes them immune to the pressures of the copyright industry, then that's the way it should be. They would also likely stop playing games with the port blocking and all that mess as well.
If you don't like this... (Score:2)
... then cut off the stream that lets these studios think they can dictate to ISPs.
In other words:
Stop buying their crap, and encourage others to do the same.
Now.
Thats a plea of a dying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the electricity company.
Action when it is appropriate (Score:2)
The problem with this is that it really should never be the responsibility of an ISP to conduct an investigation just because some other privacy entity said so.
I shouldn't be able to get a landlord to provide me with tenant information because I decided one was looking at me out of their window. I shouldn't be able to get a purchase history from a merchant because I decided a customer was going to build a deck and their condo association forbids it. I shouldn't be able to get subscriber information from a
Ultimatum to the studios: (Score:2)
Produce a product worthy of paying for, or get out of the business. And no, extortion to force payments do not count.
Responsibilities? (Score:3, Insightful)
'Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer.
It's interesting how the content lobby in any country is very keen to assign responsibilities to others when it comes to milking copyrighted works for all they're worth, but when it comes to fulfilling their own responsibilities under the copyright laws of those very same countries, they invariably come up wanting. Matter of fact, they acknowledge no such responsibilities: to the collective minds of the copyright cartel, copyright is an exclusive right belonging only to themselves, not to artists, and certainly not to society as a whole. Furthermore, that right should never, ever expire because, well, they're entitled. It's sickening: the rank odor of corporate hypocrisy has been filling U.S. courtrooms for a number of years over this very issue, and I'm disappointed to see it elsewhere.
... as usual, they want someone else to prop up their obsolete businesses. Personally, I pay some good money for a decent Internet connection, and I'll be damned if I want a single penny of that to go enforcing other people's copyrights! That's not the job of the Internet Service Provider, it's not the job of government, and it's not my job either. That task belongs to those who hold said rights. If they're incapable of enforcing them, or find themselves unable to stay afloat in a world where artificial restrictions on access to creative works have largely vanished, it's up to them to find a way to stay in business or get out of it. George Gilder called this "Creative destruction": some businesses models must go under as casualties of progress. That's the price we pay, and difficult as it is for those who suddenly find themselves left high and dry, civilization moves forward. These selfish pricks are trying to turn back the clock: they're doomed to failure, but they're causing substantial damage on their way down.
However, that particular industry drone is correct, ISPs do indeed have a responsibility: to the people who pay them to provide a quality service. I don't see the copyright cartels offering to pony up some cold, hard cash to offset the costs of all this enforcement
If these sociopathic assholes had their way, we'd all still be listening to Edison cylinders. They need to be stopped, and their excessive influence on big government needs to be reined in once and for all, before the damage they're doing becomes permanent.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple answer: there is no way copyright rights holders can enforce copyright restrictions today. Not independently, perhaps not at all without the cooperation of users.
Does that really mean that copyright should be abolished? Does this mean that every business that depends on payment for use of materials should be eliminated?
As it stands today, I believe the answer is yes. Anyone in the business of selling movies, music, books or software should be completely and utterly barred from doing business. Eit
in other news... (Score:3, Funny)
If I were an ISP... (Score:3, Interesting)
It’s really a joke. The teeny tiny industry of films, wants to put an ultimatum on the behavior of the whole ISP economy!
Most people do not know how ridiculously small the film and music industry is compared to others. It’s not far from the toilet seat and brush industry.
You know what I’d do? I’d say they forced me to block everything that could be copyright infringement, and then go to its logical conclusion:
Block every single video, image, text and just everything from them. Because as we all know, every time you look at one of those things, you made a copy on your computer. Even multiple ones. In the RAM, in the hard disk and CPU cache, in the VRAM, on the screen, etc.
I would also tell all my competitors to do it. And the TV and radio stations (as much as possible.)
The world wouldn’t even know they existed at all! Nobody would hear of their movies. And they would go bankrupt.
Then if someone came to me, telling me that that was anti-competitive / monopolistic behavior, I would take out the aggressively written threat letters from the movie studios, and tell him that they forced me to do it against my will.
(If my lawyer team would recommend it, I’d provoke the studios to send me a court order.)
So go on, movie studios. Please do (literally) fuck yourselves. ^^
This applies to ALL recordable media (Score:3, Interesting)
Businesses such as recordable DVD manufacturers / VHS, Betamax, Blu-Ray recorders want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of recordable media and equipment and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business.'
Business such as movie studios want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of a rapidly dying horse (I see they've remade Nightmare on Elm Street now, ffs can't these people come up with an original idea anymore), while trying to keep that industry firmly locked in 1970s style price-fixing. If THEY don't like having to deal with offering reasonably priced products based on the distribution method (i.e. higher price for physical media, liver concerts, cinema seats etc, and a lower price for digital distribution), then they should get out of the business.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to be curious. iiNet is a public company, with publicly accessible annual reports like this "Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statements of Changes in Equity and Cash flow Statement" [iinet.net.au].
In this you'll find iiNet had revenue of approx AUD 250M in FY 2008 (July 2007 to June 2008), gross profit of about AUD62M and net profit of ~AUD20M.
Not a financial powerhouse, but I am given to understand Telstra ($4B annual profit) and Optus (can't locate numbers) have been lending a hand. If so, that does give rise t
Re: (Score:2)
Careful, this is an industry that likes to sue people for not buying their products.
Re: (Score:2)
iiNet is a significantly bigger target then their average victim.