Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Australia Piracy The Courts Your Rights Online

Aussie Film Industry Appeals ISP Copyright Case 137

schliz writes "The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has appealed a Federal Court judgement that this month exonerated ISP iiNet for its subscribers' copyright-infringing activities. In the widely publicised case, AFACT sought to penalize iiNet for its users having made 100k illegal downloads. A judge ruled that 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement,' but AFACT now claims the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Aussie Film Industry Appeals ISP Copyright Case

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:25AM (#31269934)

    change the law so that your business plan works.

  • by Mag7 ( 69118 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:32AM (#31269962)

    an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers

    Boohoo. They wanted someone else to do their dirty work for them, but now they have to actually use the legal system as intended which requires a great deal more effort. Cry me a river that they don't get a short cut to justice.

  • by branewalker ( 1665523 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:52AM (#31270048)
    A threat to the digital economy? Ok, let's ban computers! They make it trivially easy to copy intellectual property! They are a threat to the digital economy! And the Internet! It's a threat to the digital economy!
  • Digital Economy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by halowolf ( 692775 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:58AM (#31270084)
    The only digital economy that I can see AFACT being interested in is propagating its anti-competitive, artificial markets that lets Australian users get content that was released 6 months ago in the US, late, or not at all. In fact piracy has helped improve Australian free to air television by encouraging TV stations to screen popular TV series as soon as they possibly can so that pirates don't need to actually download those shows. A lot of the reason behind people in Australia downloading shows is because they just are not available to view in Australia for months on end if at all. It doesn't make it right, but its one of the big reasons it happens.

    All we want studios is to be able to legally obtain content in our Australian region when it is released in another region like the UK or US in a timely manner without all the local market bull-s*@t that you put us through time and time again so you can make more money by charging us more when we could buy it in the US or something where they have real market competition for cheaper.

    Of course there will always be the bunch of people that infringe copyright that just want the stuff for free, and its these people I have no sympathy for, as its used as an excuse by content creators to screw us over time and time again as they seek their almighty dollars.
  • by Ritontor ( 244585 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @06:12AM (#31270166)

    Since when is it the role of the courts to arbitrarily legislate to protect the failing business models of certain corporations?

  • Re:Unclear point (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @06:13AM (#31270174)
    all i can do is lol. if the court found in favour of all these things, how does AFACT explain the need to appeal?

    the thing that's really pissed AFACT off is that they were ordered to pay iinet's costs to the tune of some 400k. guess there's no chance they will take this opportunity to reflect on the fact THEY are in the wrong.

  • by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @06:18AM (#31270200)
    the ISP shouldn't be required outside of a court order to monitor anything. if you were to try hunt down even a fraction of p2p users you'd have to have 100's of people working at it, turning up to court dates, collecting evidence.

    why the fuck should iinet (and by extension it's customers) have to foot that cost just to protect the film industries clients? fuck their IP, i don't get to DEMAND the local council provide free security and install an alarm free of charge in my house because someone might steal my property, just because the local council provides the footpath theives walk on.

  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @06:50AM (#31270340) Homepage

    To be honest the internet is a threat to the digital economy --------- of the middle men, those that contribute nothing but, hmm, bullshit. The publishers who spend their lives lying about the quality of the content they 'publish', who produce (not create) some of the worst content imaginable (I not sure that word should be associated with the content they produce) where they pay peanuts to the best performing casting couch specialists, the endless parade of one hit drunken drug addled performance artists.

    What does this work or those people actually contribute to society, is their work to be considered a useful art, or should their narcissist sociopathic behaviour become a part of shameful history. Their willingness to corrupt everything they touch, law, politics, society, and even children and they believe they are worth protecting, that their ability to exploit and distort human mores to fit their own psychosis is of valuable to society.

    So will the digital economy be better with or without them, how about the real economy, the one of humanity and the planets natural resources, can they continued to be wasted upon this groups their very public excesses, you could not find a group that consumes and pollutes more than them.

  • by jamesh ( 87723 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @08:14AM (#31270708)

    Their job is to make sure the market is running effectively.

    Nope. Last time I did any sort of legal studies at school, the role of the courts was to apply the law to the matter at hand. They can also interpret the law in cases of ambiguity (eg for situations that didn't exist when the law was created). It's certainly not their role to set policies for commerce though. If the law says one thing they they have to apply it whether they think its fair or not.

    If something attracts as much attention as this then the government might start floating around policy changes to 'fix' the situation up, but that's not the role of the courts.

    ('fix' is in quotes because the cynic in me says that it will be 'fixed' according to whoever throws them enough money...)

  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @08:18AM (#31270752) Homepage

    That money is not created, it is bled from the rest of the economy, a parasitical existence is not a contributory existence, they neither feed, house, clothe, heal, transport or produce useful usable goods. Plus, please do not confuse the exploited creators with the exploitative publishers. The creative commons, openly self published on the internet is a far more valuable and inclusive resource, where content is a participatory experience.

    So profit and greed is what you claim as their one saving grace, hmm , drug dealers and pimps could also fit exactly that same profile and oddly enough they are equally destructive of society and as it turns out, they are also closely associated with the content publishing industry, now why do I not find that a surprise.

  • by dov_0 ( 1438253 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @08:34AM (#31270834)
    The REALLY cynical amongst us are in actuality realists. Not surprised at all. The case was definitely part of their agenda to make other organisations spend huge amounts of money to prevent harm to themselves (ie, lawsuits) to in turn to force more money into the music distribution industries already bulging pockets. This court case went the wrong way for (not)AFACT, but I'm sure they only view it as a temporary setback.
  • by Yamata no Orochi ( 1626135 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @10:18AM (#31271694)

    But corporations are people too:(

    At least in regards to most legal benefits afforded individual people. Less so in regards to disadvantages.

  • by Captain Hook ( 923766 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @10:56AM (#31272080)

    "Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems, the Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips's decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge."

    You try and figure it out. I'm still at a complete loss to explain this. Were the Sony execs really THAT short-sighted? And still?

    Sony Launched the Walkman in 1979, but didn't get into the content production side of the business until 1988 with the purchase of CBS Records.

    It's behaviour early on was inline with it's business at the time which was the manufacture of tape players. It's only when it started trying to produce content that its business model start conflicting with itself.

  • Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @11:15AM (#31272262)
    While were at it, lets make the telephone company responsible for phone fraud, and the postal service responsible for mail fraud,,, none of these silly "common carrier" exemptions should apply!
  • ObHeinlein (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @12:36PM (#31273220) Homepage Journal

    It's time, once again, for the ObHeinlein:

    There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.

    -- The Judge in "Life-Line"

"I don't believe in sweeping social change being manifested by one person, unless he has an atomic weapon." -- Howard Chaykin