Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Australia Piracy The Courts The Internet Your Rights Online

Australian Court Gives Green Light To Disconnect Pirates 131

Posted by timothy from the you-win-some-partially-you-lose-some-partially dept.
aesoteric writes "The Full Bench of Australia's Federal Court (three judges) has dismissed the film industry's appeal against a February 2010 judgment that found ISP iiNet had not authorised copyright infringement on its network. However, the ruling was a 2-1 majority and the judges have made several concessions to the Hollywood film studios. In particular, they set out a prescriptive path for the film industry to change the way it identifies alleged copyright infringers. The ruling says that if the film industry amends the format of its notices of infringement, pays the ISP to vet the notices and indemnifies the ISP against any fallout from disconnecting a customer, then disconnection is a reasonable step the ISPs should take to combat piracy. Essentially, the ruling gives internet service providers no absolute protection over the actions of their subscribers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Court Gives Green Light To Disconnect Pirates More

Australian Court Gives Green Light To Disconnect Pirates

Comments Filter:

  • It's scary that one of the three judges was willing to basically let the movie industry control the ISP industry in the movie industry's interests.

    But overall it seems like a good decision; even if they did bend over a little for the movie industry, they did set out some expectations about what is and what isn't the right way to go about sending notices of infringement.

    • Re:Close one (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dwarfsoft ( 461760 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @11:10PM (#35309176) Homepage

      I find it interesting that they specified that the Movie Industry needed to pay the ISP to vet the claims. Which means that frivolous disconnect requests should be weeded out or not submitted. This also means that the industry better have real evidence rather than just circumstantial evidence against their proposed user. Hopefully it should cut down on some of the bullying... It could have been far worse.

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by exomondo ( 1725132 )

        It could have been far worse.

        Especially since piracy was the reason 4 americans (who could easily have been australians) were recently gunned down on their yacht.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          4 americans (who could easily have been australians)

          Sure it sounds easy - until you've tried it.

      • Why should frivolous disconnect requests not be submitted? It's not like any part of the process is going to an actual court, or part of a real court proceeding.

        It's appears to basically be saying, the movie industry can kick whomever they like off the internet, the ISP has to follow their direction, and the only remedy an individual may have would be to sue the movie industry in an effort to be reconnected (I guess by somehow proving they are innocent?).

        • Because they have to pay for the ISP to actually VET the request to make sure there is sufficient evidence to kick them off. The ISP does NOT want to piss of their customers. The industry will start to be very clear about specific users. Hopefully having this avenue will also mean that the sue-and-settle method of getting cash can be addressed if they didn't first take this step.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Eskarel ( 565631 )

        There's also another important part of the ruling. Indemnifying the ISP means that you can sue them if they get you disconnected unfairly. Let me reiterate, if they abuse this and get you disconnected unfairly, You can sue them.

        Do you really think the MPAA is going to find disconnect notices so attractive if they have to pay for the investigation and the mess they make.

    • It's not a horrible decision, it seems reasonable. If the movie industry wants someone disconnected, they have to pay the ISP for their time to check it out. Hopefully it might make the movie industry confirm their facts first rather than the shotgun-spray approach

    • Re:Close one (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @11:18PM (#35309232) Homepage

      Not that scary, it makes the the person claiming copyright infringement fully liable for disconnecting the wrong person or having insufficient proof to justify that disconnection and they have to pay the ISP's cost. They will also have to pay for warnings (low onus off proof) and of course for disconnection (high onus of proof that the person who 'contracted' the service is actually infringing). So the more action they want from the ISP the more it costs them, with no cost recovery.

      In Australia that often sides with the consumer. For example, having problems resolving issues with your incumbent Telecom, contact the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and that Telecom gets the bill for the time you spend with the ombudsman, you'll be surprised how quickly your problem get resolved.

      • For example, having problems resolving issues with your incumbent Telecom, contact the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and that Telecom gets the bill for the time you spend with the ombudsman, you'll be surprised how quickly your problem get resolved.

        If that doesn't work, does the situation escalate to a Booting? [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Lord_of_the_nerf ( 895604 )

      Actually, it's in our constitution, verbatim:

      "Ye shall have the right to be judged two peers and the village idiot who dost equate the sharing of files with wagon theft."

  • disconnect all (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    as long as they disconnect all without remorse, i do not see the problem.

    that includes politicians, people whose children downloaded something, big firms whose connection has been used to download something from.

    if that would happen people will care more about their behavior on the internet, ISPs will fight for their clients rights and RIAA and shit like that will be the bad guys they are.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Seumas ( 6865 )

      They said PIRACY. A kid downloading a movie or a song isn't committing piracy. If he's burning it to DVD and slapping a nice cover on it and selling it over eBay or some website for $5/ea to make a profit from it, he's committing piracy.

      • The MAFIAA's description of copyright infringement (aka pirating) is just DL'ing a the file to your hard drive.

        If you leave it there ==> Gotcha!

        So anything beyond that is just more sins after the original.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )
        Are you in charge of definitions now? Because for the last few years of stories about The Pirate Bay and all that, I've heard piracy used to describe illegal downloading, even by those themselves? Is there some sudden move to try and disassociate from the term now that it's starting to be considered a bad thing by more people?

  • Its not ideal, but better than having the ruling overturned. Although, the prospect of having the studios pay ISP's to process the infringement notices will give them yet another reason to complain about "the cost of piracy".

  • Copyright thugs rejoice! Bottom lines improved! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mykos ( 1627575 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @11:12PM (#35309188)
    They're not solving a problem; they're simply transferring money from one industry to another.

    I say that if an ISP has to lose a customer over copyright infringement, then the organization requesting the disconnect needs to pay at least half of the "lost revenue" (the term so loved by the copyright organizations) for the entire duration of the disconnected customer. That way they can split financial responsibilities between them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      They're not solving a problem; they're simply transferring money from one industry to another.

      I say that if an ISP has to lose a customer over copyright infringement, then the organization requesting the disconnect needs to pay at least half of the "lost revenue" (the term so loved by the copyright organizations) for the entire duration of the disconnected customer. That way they can split financial responsibilities between them.

      Here's the brilliant thing, unlike the film industry the ISP's can actually prove that revenue will be lost.

      Alleged Pirate Bob has 14 months left in his 24 month contract. His contract is 59 gold pieces a month. This is a legally enforced contract so Bob cannot cancel it, that money is practically guaranteed. However if the ISP disconnects bob it means the ISP breaks the contract and effectively release Bob from the contract. This leaves a 826 Thaler hole in the ISP's bottom line.

      Actual loss of income

      • Considering in previous cases the recording industry felt justified to demand $22500 per song that would cost roughly $1 on iTunes that means the ISP's lawyer should go for at least 18 million bucks in that example case above.

        • hell, if you factor in that if the ISP hadnt disconnected poor ol' pirate Bob, he might have stayed a customer for ever (and hands his cable modem down to his firstborn son etc...) that means the ISP loses 59 * INFINITY!!!!! pieces of eight

          Honestly, i would LOVE to have ISPs countersue the MAFIAA for lost revenue, in the end it could somehow lead to a more fair pricing on media, since the MAFIAA would be directly faced with the cost of their current plan to fend off piracy, and might consider competing in d

    • Half?
      Seeing as how those companies want thousands of dollars for every shared song or movie it would only be fair for the ISPs to demand the local MAFIAA equivalent to pay a fee of at least 50000 dollars in advance before their employees lift a finger for such a request.

    • YOU HANDSOME GENIUS YOU!

      Don't you see? Our ISP contracts and service could now be increased to include "piracy insurance" which is a part of your service. This insurance then ensures that any loss resulting from "piracy" will be paid for by the ISP. Therefore, the ISP has the right to demand from the people who are suing the ISP, the amount they would get, if it were successful. Therefore, the film industry can never make any money off of it!

      Huzzah for contorted logic!

      Though seriously, what's the likelihood

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )
        Well done, "genius", you've just created a scenario where an ISP can still get revenue whilst not having the costs of providing a service. Noooo, that's not an incentive for ISPs to cut someone off at all now, is it?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )
      You want the victim to pay compensation to the person that loses revenue when the culprit doesn't need their tools, anymore? I can see that principle breaking down rather quickly. "Your honour, the serial killer used to rent a lock-up from me to store the bodies. Now that the victims' families have brought charges, I stand to lose that income." "Good point - I hereby declare that in return for sentencing the killer, those families must reimburse you for lost income. Next!"

      Nice.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
      Are isp's prohibited from re-subscribing someone who has been disconnected? If not I could see 10 day disconnect letters being used to give people time to sign up for "new" service that happens to start the same day their old service gets disconnected.
    • I would have to disagree here. What you're saying is that Internet Service Providers should not be held accountable in any way, shape or form for how their service is used? Every service provider from Electrical to Transportation to Gas stations are responsible for monitoring how their services are used and reporting any illegal activities. But you're suggesting that not only should ISPs not have to monitor their services, but they should be rewarded if they allow their services to be used illegally.

      I'

  • iiNet won - good

    But they can send notices now - bad

    But they have to pay all the ISPs costs - good (cause it will suppress the volume they send and limit spamming)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mmj638 ( 905944 )

      But the toppings contain potassium benzoate.

    • Re:Bit of a mixed bag (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dakameleon ( 1126377 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @11:51PM (#35309400)

      But they can send notices now - bad

      It's not that they couldn't send notices before, but before it was more of a formality. They'd send the notice on as a warning that you've been noticed doing this activity, but the burden of enforcement wasn't there. Now, there's potential for a mechanism for these notices to be legitimate and enforceable - I think unless you're a hardcore committed anti-copyright activist*, you can hardly claim this is not reasonable. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, but it makes it more sensible in that Australian-based claimants should only issue notices if they have sufficient evidence to pursue conviction. Pretty sure the US ones will continue to issue their form-letter warnings no matter what.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )
      Which ISP's would do this?

      The dodgy ones yes but what happens when people actually start getting kicked off of their Telstra Big Pond accounts?

      They'll go to iinet. You'll find that ISP's like iinet, Internode, Adam et al. covet their customer base very jealously. All kinds of excuses will be used for non compliance. The admin costs for this will be astronomical, they'll put VPN's in place by default. In the end all the studios have wrought is another way for them to lose money.

      And all that will hap

    • But they can send notices now - bad

      Why is that bad?

      It is just one avenue of copyright holders to protect their copyrights. Notices may have the effect of stopping an infringement that is going on without having to involve the courts immediately, I don't see anything bad there. However they will have to pay the cost of the ISP that deals with the notices, and I think that's a good thing. It basically means the copyright owner has to pay for their own cost of protecting their rights.

      I have no idea what the legal value is of such a notice; th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )
        Unfortunately I don't have the link to hand, but I did read that the notices actually met with some success. A lot of people who pirate just do so because (a) they've never thought of it as wrong and (b) they consider themselves anonymous. In many cases, a letter arriving saying: "look, stop nicking our stuff" has made them think about one or both of these. Basically, as you say, a letter is a much better first step than a legal charge.

        • Kind of anecdotal, but I see the same thing. From personal experience, that approach got me in to buying a TV licence. The thought that I'd not be noticed evaporated when some guy came knocking on the door.

          Yeah, a personalised (i.e. not addressed to "Dear RESIDENT") letter is a pretty good start. It's a wake-up call, and also helps on the PR side should the labels decide to unleash legal obliteration against some parents who failed to get their kids to stop downloading stuff. The latter is kind of difficult

  • Digital Capital Punishment? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zlel ( 736107 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @11:31PM (#35309284) Homepage
    Why don't we cut their electricity cos they used electricity to run the PC to connect to the internet?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by c0lo ( 1497653 )
      Huh! I'm using a SheevaPlug powered with solar panels for my pirating activities. Disconnecting the electricity will only shut down my refrigerator... errr... wait... let me put some ice into that Esky, I hate warm beer.
    • There we go again.... blaming the 'tool' used to facilitate the aforementioned action..... When will it stop???

  • The full judgement (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cimexus ( 1355033 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @11:40PM (#35309340)

    The full judgement, including the majority and minority decisions, is available here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2011/23.html [austlii.edu.au]

    It's worth a read, or a skim at least. The judges were entirely reasonable in their dismissal and actually do seem to grasp the technical side of the case quite well (no doubt assisted by iiNet having some excellent technical witnesses/advisors during the trial). Overall it's a very good outcome for Australian Internet users, and confirms the very high level of consumer protection in this country compared to many other places.

    The concession to the film industry that will now allow them to legitimately send infringement notices with the potential to disconnect users is OK. There is a heavy onus placed on the film industry to come up with all the evidence, show that it's relevant and pay for the ISPs time to investigate. Further, if the disconnection is later found to be unwarranted, it is the film industry that bears all responsibility and liability, not the ISP. So although there is now a prescribed path the film industry can take to disconnect people, the barriers to doing so are high, which sound reduce frivolous claims and make sure they really only go after that large-scale uploaders, not every man and his dog that occasionally downloads a film or two.

    Interesting how I've seen this news on so many sites, and they all report it with overwhelmingly positive headlines ... except Slashdot. Slashdot is the only site I've seen that somehow seems to wrangle this into a NEGATIVE sounding headling. Is it just me or is /. turning into the grumpy old man that likes to complain about everything and is constantly trying to push their agenda onto other people...

    • Typo in third paragraph: 'which sound reduce frivolous claims' should obviously read 'which SHOULD reduce...' >

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pacinpm ( 631330 )

      Interesting how I've seen this news on so many sites, and they all report it with overwhelmingly positive headlines ... except Slashdot. Slashdot is the only site I've seen that somehow seems to wrangle this into a NEGATIVE sounding headling. Is it just me or is /. turning into the grumpy old man that likes to complain about everything and is constantly trying to push their agenda onto other people...

      It's because it's bad decision. It introduces new punishment: denial of communication. As someone already mentioned it: why not cut people's electric power or ban computer use at all?

      Internet is so important today that you can't just disconnect people. Infringements should go to regular civil trials and money punishments.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sstrick ( 137546 )

        Even in Aus we have more then one provider.....

        • Even in Aus we have more then one provider.....

          Yeah, but the whinger may have been in the US, where even big cities are sometimes divided up into monopoly areas.

      • Disconnect does not necessarily imply ban. This is not a three-strikes policy. I forsee the first case being little more than a week without the internet and a bit of paperwork on the behalf of the accused, and chances are you may be able to sign up right with the same provider again.

      • An ISP can already disconnect you for any damn reason it sees fit (under their TOS). They have always been able to do this, and it has nothing to do with the this particular judgement. In fact, it makes the likelyhood of disconnection by your ISP LESS because ISPs no longer have to fear they will be held responsible for piracy and simply disconnect people 'to be safe'. It must now be investigated through a proper due process.

        Plus, unlike in the US, there's typically 30+ ISPs to choose from in most given are

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bit01 ( 644603 )

      Interesting how I've seen this news on so many sites, and they all report it with overwhelmingly positive headlines

      Many of those websites are not exactly unbiased.

      That's been a problem with the entire "intellectual property" discussion; main stream media with extreme vested interests framing the debate (e.g. Don't think of an elephant [google.com]). Not to mention compromising democracy in general for their own profit.

      ---

      Like software, "intellectual property" law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want

    • Any shutdown of your internet service by a third party is totally unacceptable regardless of any "concessions" or "protections". What's next, websites demanding that people who use Adblock have their internet disconnected? That must be OK since those "so many sites" you mention would be even more enthusiastic in their support. The content industry has plenty of funding and legal representation and will continue its terror campaign against its enemy--the mass of people who download occasionally instead of

  • In a sense, the actual verdict here was somewhat irrelevant, given that both sides were certain to appeal the outcome if they lost.

    It's a little uncertain where things will go from here. The fact that one of the three justices was willing to give AFACT members the power to force ISPs to disconnect their customers based on mere allegations is extremely troubling, but the proposals by the majority justices appear to constitute what would be seen by the High Court as a reasonable compromise, making the rather

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      In a sense, the actual verdict here was somewhat irrelevant, given that both sides were certain to appeal the outcome if they lost.

      The High Court does not have to take the case.

      It is the onus of the losing party to justify why the High Court should even hear their case, with the 2-1 against ruling the studio's they have some ammunition to go to the High Court but I doubt the Court will give them the time of day with the current ruling.

      So it's of to parliament they go, but Conroy also wont give them

  • Piracy. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Sasayaki ( 1096761 )

    Copyright infringement is not piracy. This woman [wikipedia.org], known as the Lion of Brittany, was a pirate. I doubt she had many MP3s, although she did have three ships, seven children and a very successful thirteen year career as a pirate where she took great delight in personally executing French noblemen with an axe and tossing their bodies overboard.

    Put into perspective, copyright infringement- even deliberate, for-profit, commercial piracy- pales in comparison. Really, now. They might as well call it "rape", from t

    • Minor correction- that's The LionESS of Brittany.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bakes ( 87194 )

      Sorry, you can't use the word 'rape' either, as that word refers to a plant [wikipedia.org] used to make edible oils.

      Many words have multiple meanings, the word piracy is now one of them. As another example, if I call you a knob I am not saying you are "a rounded handle, as on a drawer or door".

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )
      I agree that pirate is a bad term. I prefer calling them "freeloaders". It's an entirely accurate word for what they do.

  • Nowhere near as bad as the headline makes it sound (Score:5, Informative)

    by euphemistic ( 1850880 ) on Friday February 25, 2011 @12:07AM (#35309460)
    While it might give AFACT a better description of what it would potentially need to disconnect people, there are a few things in the summary by Judge Cowdroy which suggest even if they did, it still wouldn't happen.

    13. Secondly, I find that a scheme for notification, suspension and termination of customer accounts is not, in this instance, a relevant power to prevent copyright infringement pursuant to s 101(1A)(a) of the Copyright Act, nor in the circumstances of this case is it a reasonable step pursuant to s 101(1A)(c) of the Copyright Act.

    I find that iiNet did have a repeat infringer policy which was reasonably implemented and that iiNet would therefore have been entitled to take advantage of the safe harbour provisions in Division 2AA of Part V of the Copyright Act if it needed to do so. ... While iiNet did not have a policy of the kind that the applicants believed was required, it does not follow that iiNet did not have a policy which complied with the safe harbour provisions. However, as I have not found that iiNet authorised copyright infringement, there is no need for iiNet to take advantage of the protection provided by such provisions.

    20. The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another. The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts.

    The above taken from the judge's summary of the findings

    426. There can be no doubt that the respondent has the contractual right to warn and terminate its subscribers pursuant to its CRA if a breach of its terms occurs. However, that does not, of itself, make termination a reasonable step or a relevant power to prevent infringement in all circumstances. It must be remembered that absent those contractual provisions, the respondent would have had no power to terminate subscribers even if they were found by a Court to have infringed copyright. The CRA constitutes the respondent’s standard contractual terms used by a wide variety of subscribers. Consequently, and unsurprisingly, the CRA seeks to provide sufficient contractual terms to cover all eventualities, both existing at the time of the writing of the CRA and into the future. That does not mean that such terms should or would always be exercised even if a contractual right to exercise them arises. 427. Further, the right to do something does not create an obligation to do something. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that the only two parties relevant to the enforcement of the CRA are the respondent and the subscriber. Should the contract be breached by the subscriber, it is entirely a matter for the respondent to decide whether to act on the contract. Had the respondent taken action against its subscribers based on an AFACT Notice and it was subsequently found that the allegation was unfounded, the respondent would have committed a breach of its contract with the subscriber and been made potentially liable for damages without any indemnity from the applicants or AFACT. In such circumstance it was not unreasonable that the respondent should have sought to be cautious before acting on information provided by a party unrelated to the CRA.

    436. The Court does not consider that warning and termination of subscriber accounts on the basis of AFACT Notices is a reasonable step...

    The above taken from the full findings available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html [austlii.edu.au]

  • Not all judges recommended disconnects. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Spikeles ( 972972 ) on Friday February 25, 2011 @12:27AM (#35309532)
    Parts 436 - 442 from the full ruling show that at least one judge(remember there were 3) understands that cutting internet off is a bad idea.

    The Court does not consider that warning and termination of subscriber accounts on the basis of AFACT Notices is a reasonable step, and further, that it would constitute a relevant power to prevent the infringements occurring.

    Such punishment or sanction would be collective because the termination or suspension of a subscriber account would affect not just the person who infringed, but all those who access the internet through such account or use such account as a phone line via VOIP.

    The law knows of no sanction for copyright infringement other than that imposed by a court pursuant to Part V of the Copyright Act. Such sanction is not imposed until after a finding of infringement by a court. Such sanction is not imposed on anyone other than the person who infringed. Such sanction sounds in damages or, if criminal, possible fines and imprisonment, not removal of the provision of the internet.

  • harsh (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Seems pretty harsh to cut off an entire family from the 'net just because their teenager downloaded a few favourite tv shows.

  • I think it's our imperative to revolt against intrusion into our digital realms by archaic industries. It's a new age, and the relics of the past need to either evolve or pass away into oblivion.
    You can't set your valuables on the curb and cry to the police when they are picked up by passers by. The archaic technologies that the movie and music industry use are little more than a modern equivalent of placing their product on the curb for everyone to have at. Then they have the audacity to attempt to hinder

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )
      Are you serious or is that parody? Free Speech was about people being able to safely speak their beliefs, not about distributing Dragon Age II or Iron Man for free. Boycott has historically meant stopping buying something and doing without, not taking something and refusing to pay. I reject entirely that people writing computer games, novels, recording songs, making movies, are "archaic powers". These are people contributing to our culture and they deserve to get paid at whatever price they and their custom

      • Free Speech was about people being able to safely speak their beliefs, not about distributing Dragon Age II or Iron Man for free.

        Free Speech is about speech (i.e. communication) in itself not being a crime, regardless of the content. It is a specific instance of the more general principle that the only actions deserving of punishment are those which cause harm to others. Copyright infringement is nothing but a specific case of communication, and does not harm anyone—a copyright holder is no worse off if people 'pirate' his or her work than he or she would be if they simply did without it, and may even benefit as a side-effect o

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )

          Free Speech was about people being able to safely speak their beliefs, not about distributing Dragon Age II or Iron Man for free.

          Free Speech is about speech (i.e. communication) in itself not being a crime, regardless of the content. It is a specific instance of the more general principle that the only actions deserving of punishment are those which cause harm to others. Copyright infringement is nothing but a specific case of communication, and does not harm anyone—a copyright holder is no worse off if people 'pirate' his or her work than he or she would be if they simply did without it, and may even benefit as a side-effect of the public exposure. To punish someone for such an act is a clear case of aggression.

          I'm still unconvinced the GP wasn't a parody. But are you telling me that you see no difference between someone's right to state their beliefs and someone downloading Iron Man 2? Seriously?

          As regards your argument about copyright infringement doing no harm, I note that you slipped in a caveat about people downloading as compared to not buying. What about where people download something instead of buying? I just spent £25 on a programming book for my Kindle. Most of that money will go straight to th

          • But are you telling me that you see no difference between someone's right to state their beliefs and someone downloading Iron Man 2?

            Assuming that by "beliefs" you meant "political beliefs", there are all kinds of differences between the two, but none where it counts: neither act harms anyone, and thus neither act should be punished. Of course, Free Speech is not limited to political expression; it need not even be about one's true beliefs, although even that would be enough to cover communication of sufficiently-detailed facts to reconstruct the audiovisual elements of a movie. No act of communication alone, regardless of content, is de

      • > being able to safely speak their beliefs

        You are not able to "speak" your belief today if somebody has already spoken that belief. Thanks Cpt. Copyright.

        > taking something and refusing to pay

        Pirates are not actually "taking" or "refusing" anything. They are exchanging information amongst their peers. People have been sharing information for ages, they used to call it "learning from eachother". It was Cpt. Copyright who started with "lets errect toll booths between people" and then started chasing aro

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )

          Instead of inventing 1984esque names for stuff you dont like, acknowledge that the main problem of your business model is that people simply prefer sharing stuff amongst eachother instead of buying it over and over and over again from somebody (in this case: you) who permanently keeps threatening them with life-ruining penalties.

          Okay, let's start at the end. Nowhere have I threatened or advocated threatening anyone with "life-ruining penalties." So drop that one right off. And as you have a problem with the term pirate (despite it being universally understood what is meant), I'll use the alternate term "freeloader", meaning one who lives for free of what others work / pay for. That's accurate to what a pirate does seeing as they download for free what the rest of us have funded the creation of by paying for it. As to the rest of yo

  • If I download copyrighted content but then upload it don't the two cancel out?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )

      If I download copyrighted content but then upload it don't the two cancel out?

      Are you suggesting that you are uploading the files back to the same place you just downloaded them from?

  • Invoice to Time Warner for Disconnection of Joe User:

    25,000$ Labour and Investigation Charge
    10,000$ Lost Revenue Charge
    10,000$ Legal Fee Charge

    Subtotal, 45,000$

    Now, is that worth it for going after someone who downloaded the newest terrible action movie, watched five minutes, and deleted it?

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close