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.'"
The courts should not ... (Score:5, Insightful)
change the law so that your business plan works.
Re:The courts should not ... (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed, the cynical amongst us might think that they planned to lose the case to iiNet just so that they could make this very appeal...
GrpA
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Someone needs to bring action to deem the record industry, and in particular AFACT, as a vexatious litigant [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The court tests whether the law is applied correctly.
Parliament and ministers and such make laws.
And the police will uphold the law.
That's the trias politica, and if everybody keeps to this law, then we'll all be happy campers. These courts CANNOT change the law. If the law is not clear, (in the original way) the lawMAKERS must improve the law. However, in reality, the world moves faster than lawmakers, and this means that courts have to interpret the law - which means that in fact they became lawmakers, or
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how it's like in Australia, but in the USA the courts can also strike down laws.
Re: (Score:2)
The Greedy Farmer parable (Score:2)
These "content providers" should realize that publishing content is like releasing oxygen in the atmosphere.
Imagine a farmer that wants to profit from the oxygen his plants release. He could build a greenhouse to capture the oxygen and sell bottled oxygen to customers that agree to pay his price. But that would need investment in the greenhouse and the oxygen bottling equipment. Instead of investing money to get a profit, he releases the oxygen in the atmosphere and lobbies to get a law forcing people have
ObHeinlein (Score:4, Insightful)
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 believe that working business plan is... (Score:3, Informative)
They should change the law so that at least one business plan works for an in demand product.
I believe that working business plan is called "sell DVDs".
Their main complaint is that they want access to a new distribution channel without risk. This is the same thing that the credit card companies wanted when they successfully lobbied to change the U.S. bankruptcy laws to turn all the uncollateralized debt they had outstanding into collateralized debt. They could instead have refrained from offering credit cards to unemployed college students and other sub-prime credit risks, but instead they had th
Re: (Score:1)
Like I said, that's not their job. Their job is to make sure the market is running effectively. A product that is in demand, but not being provided (for whatever reason) is a market running improperly. Propping up certain business models is incidental to their actual duty.
Re:The courts should not ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...)
Re: (Score:2)
It is certainly not the court's duty to make sure that the workable business plans allow you to make money hand over fist, just that there exist a decently profitable business model. The movie industry, of course, prefers the massive profitability, but that's their problem.
Personally, I like the pay me a gajillion bucks an hour to smile. At a gajillion bucks an hour, I will certainly do a lot of smiling. Who doesn't like to see people smiling? Oddly, the courts don't seem to feel obligated to support my bus
Re: (Score:2)
We do actually. The fact that nobody has managed a serious attempt at any other business models is evidence that nobody has found a superior business model. If there were such a superior business model, then in theory, an enterprising artist could take on Big Media successfully. Perhaps not supersede them in profits, but at least enough to get noticed and to get a business running.
Perhaps the enterprising artists need the law to quit mostly supporting the big media's business model long enough for them to get off the ground. They might do quite well if not for big media saturating every channel out there.
It could also be that there are many fine business models that allow a fair but not tremendous profit. After all, it's not like we had no music before copyright. The lack of movies was purely a technology issue. It is notable though that movie making moved to the west coast in spite
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible, but I would also wonder why Big Media wouldn't have attempted it. They certainly have the resources, and it's not like they like having their livelihood at the mercy of the self-restraint of a public who are increasingly despising them. If they can find a way to wean t
Re: (Score:2)
If they can find a way to wean themselves off their business model
The majority of "big media" business models are based on artificial scarcity [wikipedia.org]. That is, big media charge for the packaging and distribution of bits and bytes as a if these things are scarce commodity. Note that I am not talking about the actual artistic content creation, but only the packaging and distribution. Packaging and distribution are certainly value adding exercises, but when talking about digital media, the cost to reproduce and distribute is a fixed cost or as close to fixed as you can get (see wik
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible, but I would also wonder why Big Media wouldn't have attempted it. They certainly have the resources, and it's not like they like having their livelihood at the mercy of the self-restraint of a public who are increasingly despising them. If they can find a way to wean themselves off their business model, without taking huge hits to their profitability, I'm sure they would at least investigate it.
Lack of imagination, not wanting to open the door for smaller players to enter, not wanting new artists to bypass them entirely, take your pick.
You now seem to be arguing that the courts should support the MOST profitable business model, rather than just make sure that there is A profitable business model.
Besides, there's no reason why others can't use those systems. As I pointed out before, the existence of copyright does not mandate its use. You can compete with these other business models on even terms. See whether there is a drop in quality and/or quantity (as I would predict) with adopting these older business models, and if there is, see whether people prefer the freedom to the quantity/quality.
There's plenty of reason. The *AA have saturated the channels. Overcoming an old boy network requires large amounts of graft which will not be feasible to a small player in a big market.
That sounds interesting. Do you have a link regarding this?
http://www.imdb.co [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but we'll have to cut this discussion short. I've been swamped with work, and university has just resumed.
Besides, I can't keep giving these mods -1 Troll mod opportunities! This discussion has been hell for my karma.
That's what I get for disagreeing with daring to question the groupthink I guess [/embitteredandcynical]
Oh I I feel so sorry for them (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
More importantly the opposite judgment would have really eliminated any possibility of a proper digital economy.
Re:Oh I I feel so sorry for them (Score:4, Funny)
Or as we Aussies would say - Suffer in your jocks AFACT [youtube.com].
AFACT? That doesn't make sense (Score:4, Funny)
. . . Copyright Theft?
This goes beyond the typical slashdot positional debate on whether or not violations of copyright are considered theft or infringement. I would propose a new clever acronymic name:
Australian Federation Against Respect for Copyright. That would make them AFARC which would describe their organization and efforts a lot better.
Except for record labels (Score:1)
> It's not exactly commonplace for people to steal such things.
Oh, some of us are fairly sure that the past behavior of the record labels, when they controlled music publicity almost exclusively (and quite probably illegally) so that artists didn't feel they had much choice other than to sign their copyrights away, could very easily be called "copyright theft".
In the US, at least, the artist in some cases is able to take his [slashdot.org] copyright [slashdot.org] back [usc.edu].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But corporations are people too:(
At least in regards to most legal benefits afforded individual people. Less so in regards to disadvantages.
Re: (Score:2)
It is very common for copyright to be stolen, 100% of copyrights that exist today have been or will be stolen. It is a right that belongs to the people, restricted to the creator for a limited time. Every instance where that restriction has been extended is a theft of the copyright of the people.
And in other news (Score:1, Funny)
Mr Mew Caugh quoted to the national farmers federation that "steak knives present a serious threat to the bovine community"
Restores your faith in the legal system (Score:4, Informative)
At least in Australia. Well worth reading the last link, (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/167984,analysis-five-ways-afact-lost-the-iinet-case.aspx.).
Re: (Score:1)
The internet is a threat to the digital economy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The internet is a threat to the digital economy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
To be honest the internet is a threat to the digital economy --------- of the middle men, those that contribute nothing but, hmm, bullshit.
Contribute nothing? Perhaps, but consider the following (selected at random from the US Chamber of Commerce [uschamber.com] website):
Re:The internet is a threat to the digital economy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
That money is not created, it is bled from the rest of the economy ... please do not confuse the exploited creators with the exploitative publishers ... profit and greed is what you claim as their one saving grace ...
LOL. I don't know whether you're a troll, having a bad day, or just can't read. In no way did I claim anything, or espouse any point of view. I merely pointed out that the sum total of what you find so easy to dismiss represents a huge and growing chunk of the economy (i.e., real money and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So yeah, you could make an argument that such companies contribute nothing, or make nothing, but you'd have to agree there's an awful lot of money and jobs (and corresponding political influence) tied up in those numbers, and without those companies doing the nothing that they do so well, a chunk of the economy goes poof.
Sorry, even if you accept the arguments made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that Intellectual Property is economically important (which I am inclined to do, although I did not read the whole page thoroughly so I have my doubts as to whether or not I accept the conclusions they reach from that starting point), it does not follow that the middlemen (such as record companies) add anything valuable to the economy. If the middlemen contribute nothing, then they actually remove value from the economy. Value that
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds an awful lot like a broken window fallacy.
Gibberish Modded Up to +5 (Score:3, Interesting)
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...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 willingnes
Re: (Score:2)
It is lame to argue that what you steal has no value. It is lamer still to argue that you are less corrupt than those you steal from.
Your argument is a good one and largely I agree with it. Aside from this one glaring error: Copyright infringement is not theft, stealing or any other term related to deprivation of property!
*Sigh* You'd think that a \. user would have figured this one out by now wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is a good one and largely I agree with it. Aside from this one glaring error: Copyright infringement is not theft, stealing or any other term related to deprivation of property!
The decade-old NET Act - No Electronic Theft - framed the issues otherwise.
Does it really matter so very much how the charge is worded or where the offense is placed in the statute books? Probably not to your room mates at Club Fed.
Copyright under the US Constitution creates an exclusive right to control distribution -
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright under the US constitution categorically declares that the work must be useful, it must contribute to society in order to justify it's protection for a limited time, as obviously it infringes the right of "free speech", really want to protect it, keep it to yourself, do not release it to the public.
I don't think so. (Score:3)
"...the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.'"
I believe that would be your business model that did that. That model died the moment the industry went from vinyl to magnetic tape.
Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs, then complains about infringement?
Here is the nail in the coffin, Sony. (From Wikipedia)
"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?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs, then complains about infringement?
I'm guessing that the blank DVDs are intended to be used to burn your home videos shot with Sony video cameras to disc, not to copy commercial and CSS-protected content.
I'm not a fan of stupid copyright arguments or Sony, but this argument is disingenuous. You may as well wonder "why do they sell blank paper, yet complain about the counterfeiting of currency?"
Re: (Score:1)
I'm guessing that the blank DVDs are intended to be used to burn your home videos shot with Sony video cameras to disc, not to copy commercial and CSS-protected content.
Because these are the only types of content available. God forbid other people make stuff and they love it when you burn it on a DVD to show it to your friends.
I'm not a fan of stupid copyright arguments, but this argument is disingenuous
Your honor, the defence rests.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Because these are the only types of content available.
Uhhh, I don't recall saying anything like that.
God forbid other people make stuff and they love it when you burn it on a DVD to show it to your friends.
Indeed.
Your honor, the defence rests.
What exactly are you trying to argue? I didn't say Sony's intentions were just - I was just trying to explain what Sony's intentions probably are.
Re: (Score:2)
"You may as well wonder "why do they sell blank paper, yet complain about the counterfeiting of currency?"
Well, I'm pretty sure the US government isn't selling THAT particular paper, nor the dyes or security strips.
Not only did Sony push for the general acceptance of the format, but then they went on and became the world's top seller of portable cassette tape RECORDERS.
Again, from Wikipedia...
"Some devices were also capable of recording. The highest quality Sony Walkman recording cassette deck was the Walkm
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Well, I'm pretty sure the US government isn't selling THAT particular paper, nor the dyes or security strips.
Irrelevant. Plenty of forgeries are made on normal paper.
Not only did Sony push for the general acceptance of the format, but then they went on and became the world's top seller of portable cassette tape RECORDERS.
Right. So how does that mean they support the copying of copyrighted content? There are many other uses of tape recorders.
Once again, a poor argument. Knives can be used for murder. This doesn't mean knife manufacturers advocate murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, the blank paper used by currency is not for sale to anyone but the U.S. government.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs, then complains about infringement?
They complained about infringement, then realised it wasn't going to go away, then realised they could at least profit off of it if they sold blanks. Seems logical to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Sony is split internally between different divisions, Sony actually sued itself over CD recorders or something.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 inlin
Website that cuts through the bull (Score:2, Informative)
If you wish to contribute, I need people to demand the parties [shockseat.com] to come clear on issues in the survey I have given them. So far, only 1 of 26 parties have answered [shockseat.com] and even then, I'm adding all the listed issues.
If anything, I hope it's a great guide to interested voters who are concerned about certain
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Digital Economy? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There is a reason why TV-Shows lag behind in countries outside USA. The cost to acquire broadcasting rights for a show can be quite steep and some networks want to be sure they buy a show with good ratings so they can recoup the cost by selling commercials during the show.
But then, I think a new show could be sold at a discount in the beginning so you get more networks interested and if it gets popular you can remove or reduce the discount as time pass and the popularity of the show increases. There's sever
Re: (Score:2)
Take Stargate Universe for example, TEN aired a few episodes and then took it off just as it was getting good. My guess is that pretty much anyone who is likely to care about the show has already downloaded the remaining episodes (those that have aired to date) and will not care to watch it on TEN.
Had TEN continued to air the show (even in a late night 10:30 or even 11:30 timeslot), most people would have continued to watch it (including the ads) and would not have bothered pirating it.
Re: (Score:1)
Ten do this all the time, Foxtel show something, does well, they copy it... Dexter (Ten still haven't started S4), Saving Grace (coming soon to TEN, 2 seasons played on Foxtel). And then they pretend that they are doing us a favour....
I remembered when Simpsons went "Widescreen", they forgot to tell us that it also went "HD", because their HD channel is 24 hours of crappy sports...
Re: (Score:2)
I try to organise my life very efficiently due to my many interests and part of that is watching what I want when I want, I rarely watch live television (UFC 110 was an exception in Oz tho) and I basical
Re: (Score:1)
Couldn't agree more. I travel a lot so I load up my laptop with stuff I want to read or watch since I rarely have the luxury or time to watch a show on someone else's schedule.
Unclear point (Score:1)
"The court found large scale copyright infringements, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them," he said.
Were they asked by some authority to give some information about some users and they did not comply ?
Or did they simply not pro actively hunt some customers ?
If it was the second, I do not see how this can constitute a case.
Re:Unclear point (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Unclear point (Score:5, Informative)
Why single out ISP's ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't remember a single instance where a Postal Service, a Telephone Company or a Bank were asked to behave in this manner ?
Fine, monitor the transactions being made, report them to the concerned party upon presentation of a search warrant or other legal document. But an ISP should NOT be judge, jury and executioner, they should only ever be a "witness" / "informant" (delete as appropriate).
All these companies provide is a service, and they are only legally / morally obliged to report wrongdoings. They are not required to go in "Jack Bauer" style and take out the dirty pirates. That's the job of the legal system.
Re:Why single out ISP's ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed.
By that logic, they should be suing electric companies as well because criminals use their service to grow/cook drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember a single instance where a Postal Service, a Telephone Company or a Bank were asked to behave in this manner?
For a start few postal services are private, and they do have screening at border points.
Telephone companies are subject to all manner of requirements including wire-tapping orders from federal agencies and emergency call support.
Banks are subject to money laundering legislation and are required to notify authorities any time a large transaction is made (usually around the 10,000 value of the local currency).
I don't believe ISPs should be working on behalf of the recording industry (another private in
These people are insane. (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when is it the role of the courts to arbitrarily legislate to protect the failing business models of certain corporations?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not so much the issue for us. Our problem is that the US forced a bilateral "free" trade agreement down our throat (in exchange for promising to buy more of our sheep. maybe. someday. ) that has most of the DMCA in it.
All this case proved is that they didn't quite get enough detail about how ISPs should crawl to movie companies into the FTA legislation. An error I am sure they will fix in short order.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you ascribe insanity to them. They are doing what is logical in a desperate attempt to protect their relevance. Why would an organization that is all about "copyright protection" argue against their own existence? If you can convince a court to protect your organization, why wouldn't you?
By the way, courts don't legislate.
I see some possibilities here (Score:5, Funny)
Step 1: From a conspicuously untraceable location, have somebody you trust mail you a particularly vile specimen of pornography.
Step 2: Immediately complain to the police.
Step 3: Sue the Post Office for conveying this distressing item to your house, where no doubt it was seen by children, kittens and the church officials you happened to have as guests.
Step 4: Complain about the terrible damage to the tender sensibilities of said guests and damage to your impeccable reputation for moral rectitude.
Step 5: Profit!
I'm moving to Australia, where I'll soon be rich beyond my wildest dreams of avarice...at least until some specimen of the local wildlife bites, stings, chomps or otherwise envenoms me and I die screaming in agony.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You Yankees have some weird ideas about Australia :)
I have lived here for 40 years. I have never seen an emu, a snake (poisinous or otherwise) or a kangaroo outside a zoo - those being the only animals more dangerous than a rabbit. Of our two even vaguely poisonous spiders, I have seen a red-back exactly twice.
I would be more worried about staying in America and getting eaten by a grizzly. Although you do need to watch out for drop-bears over here ...
Re: (Score:1)
Drop-bears? Aha - wikipedia to the rescue again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Canadian, actually, and have engaged in many a beer-swilling contest with my fellow Commonwealth members.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you never leave you house it doesn't count...
Re: (Score:2)
From a conspicuously untraceable location
May I recommend an employee of UK central government?
Re: (Score:2)
You left out the worst one: grabs your wallet.
with apologies to "The Castle" (Score:3, Funny)
Tell him he's dreamin'
Tell him to get stuffed
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Great movie indeed. The irony is that if I recommend it you'll all go looking for a torrent of it, so you can watch this [youtube.com] instead, which is what we have to put up with when we buy/rent DVD's over here.
Re: (Score:2)
And the double irony is that in Europe we'd have to look for a torrent because the DVD isn't available in region 2 so we couldn't by it anyway...!
It's over... (Score:1)
...100 THOUSAAAAAND!
A Law Student's thoughts: (Score:5, Informative)
However, I do have a year of Law school behind me, so:
- Australian law makes a distinction between findings of fact (i.e. John stabbed Mary) and findings of law (i.e. law x says stabbing is illegal). Findings of law can be appealed (you can argue the judge misinterpreted the law), but it's *much* harder to appeal a finding of fact. AIUI, there aren't many findings of fact in this case: the Justice found that Malone was a credible witness as a matter of fact, but the rulings on which the case was founded (i.e. that BitTorrent is the means of infringement, as opposed to the internet) are all findings of law.
* tl;dr => Most of the ruling could be overturned on appeal.
- The case was decided by a single judge of the Federal Court. That means that, IIRC, it will be appealed to the full court of the Federal Court (3+ judges). From that, it could be appealed to the High Court. (The highest court in Australia; equivalent to the Supreme Court in the US)
* tl;dr => The appeal may not be the last, there could be another.
- I'm not going to venture an opinion on the outcome of the appeal; I don't know enough. I also haven't been able to find AFACT's grounds of appeal; if I can I might be able to shed some more light on the possible success.
* tl;dr => Who knows what will happen?
- Ultimately, AFACT and their lobbyists will likely convince the politicians to change the law, whatever the outcome. This will probably suck - Aussie Communications Ministers traditionally do an average to poor job regardless of political persuasion. (examples include: mandatory filtering, "World's Greatest Luddite")
* tl;dr => What ever happens, we're probably screwed because of politics.
AFACT (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright theft is when the companies who own...errr...*represent* artists and content creators craft legislation and buy jurists to the extent that the hand you feel in your knickers is irrevocably bonded to your ass for life. : )
Simple, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright - an exclusive right to make copies.
Theft - The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. (Wikipedia).
Criminal conversion - is usually defined as the crime of exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else's property. It differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to deprive the owner of the possession of that pro
Why do they go after the ISPs ? (Score:1, Interesting)
Everybody knows, that without the PC, the user would not infringe. I think they should go after computer resellers. They are the ones guilty of providing the means of infringing. Or how about the harddisk manufacturers ? Without storage infringement would be short termed.
So close, yet so far. (Score:1)
AMERICAN Film Industry Appeals ISP Copyright Case (Score:5, Informative)
The so-called Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) is actually an not Australian at all. It is controlled by the Singapore office of the MPAA and funded from Los Angeles. AFACT has no formal or informal mechanism to allow interested Australian's to join.
To quote Justice Cowdroy from Roadshow Films v iiNet [austlii.edu.au]:
Re: (Score:2)
There will come a time (Score:2)
When will the IT Industry realise the content industry as the biggest threat to innovation of business models? Innovation is what creates wealth in business and any business that stifles innovation should be treated as a threat to all businesses.
Indirectly the content industry is a threat to every Technology professional's livelihood. Altruism aside, any legal change that enforces the status quo threatens the deployments of new technology in business models. IT has never been about 'doing old things the sa
Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone else misread AFACT? (Score:2)
I've been reading through the threads here in my usual shallow manner, and I can't seem to stop reading AFACT as AFAICT. Thus "AFACT is an organisation..." becomes "As far as I can tell is an organisation...". I just have to give up.
And if AFACT wins? (Score:2)
Unworkable? No. (Score:2)
'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers'
Obvious bullshit. “Content creators“ like moby, nine inch nails, and many others, made tons of money online. By understanding the differing physical properties of bitspace.
But what is a content “provider”? What does that actually mean? Aren’t we all by definition “content providers”? (Ok, I’m kidding. I know that it means nothing an is just a line of bullshit.)
Let’s translate this:
'In this space you call reality, it’s impossible to keep up our fantasy business model. And it has also become impossible for us to extort artists with it.'
Re: (Score:2)
Although I can understand your confusion on the matter, I think this is the thread you were looking for...
http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/19/1514258 [slashdot.org]