Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet Australia Censorship Piracy The Courts Your Rights Online

New Anti-Piracy Law In Australia Already Being Abused (abc.net.au) 73

Gumbercules!! writes: A small Australian ISP has received a demand that it block access to an overseas website or face legal action in the Federal Court, in a case in which a building company is demanding the ISP block access to an overseas site with a similar name. This case is being seen as a test case, potentially opening the way for companies and aggregated customers to use the new anti-piracy laws to block access to companies or their competition. The ISP in question has obviously been selected because they're very small and have limited financial capacity to fight a legal case.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Anti-Piracy Law In Australia Already Being Abused

Comments Filter:
  • Damn those aggregated customers they can be so....aggregating!

    • Sorry - autocorrect on a phone is a pain. I would have thought the editors would pick that up (and I should have too). This is why I shouldn't submit stories from my phone, in bed.

      Then again, maybe the slashdot guys approved it from a phone, in bed, too! :-P
      • Sorry - autocorrect on a phone is a pain. I would have thought the editors would pick that up (and I should have too). This is why I shouldn't submit stories from my phone, in bed.

        Then again, maybe the slashdot guys approved it from a phone, in bed, too! :-P

        Heh it's me that should apologize...I just couldn't resist :-)

  • Seems legit (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19, 2015 @11:46AM (#50962539)

    If you go to the infringing site [chmconstructions.com] you might get the impression that this is the Australian builder. It is not. Scroll to the bottom and the contact info is in India. The actual Simonds Homes [simonds.com.au] is something else.

    Looks like deceptive practice on the part of CHM Constructions. What can Simonds do to defend itself?

    • Yeah, it's not because of a "similar name" as TFS would have it. CHM seem to be claming (if you can wade through the mangled English) links with Simmonds.

    • by Jahta ( 1141213 )

      If you go to the infringing site [chmconstructions.com] you might get the impression that this is the Australian builder. It is not. Scroll to the bottom and the contact info is in India. The actual Simonds Homes [simonds.com.au] is something else.

      Looks like deceptive practice on the part of CHM Constructions. What can Simonds do to defend itself?

      Yes, the CHM web site does look fishy. But this is _not_ a copyright issue. CHM (whoever they are) are claiming a business relationship with Simonds Homes. If no such relationship exists, Simonds Homes should be taking CHM to court under company law, not trying to get one small ISP to block CHM's web site.

      This does appear like a stalking horse case for bending the new copyright law for other purposes.

      • It's a kinda interesting conundrum. Obviously Simonds have a complaint against CHM Constructions but if their lawyers have advised them to do this, then I think they need better lawyers.

        Blocking access to the site from Australia probably won't make a whole lot of difference, because the real reputational damage might arise elsewhere. Simonds need to get the site shut down or amended.

        The most obvious way to do this would be to file a DMCA complaint. "But wait," you say ,"neither party is in the US!" True

    • Re:Seems legit (Score:4, Informative)

      by Geordish ( 751892 ) on Thursday November 19, 2015 @12:39PM (#50962979) Homepage

      Absolutely. The following sentence on their about us page says it all:

      "CHM Construction By Simonds Homes, Australia's Legacy of 65 years in Constructions and Public listing Builder Group." [chmconstructions.com]

      They are claiming to be the same company.

    • Looks like deceptive practice on the part of CHM Constructions. What can Simonds do to defend itself?

      Since the offender has published their address, maybe some old fashioned techniques would work best.

  • Did anybody not expect this? The real question now is whether this will get worse or whether judges and lawmakers will grow brains

  • by CimmerianX ( 2478270 ) on Thursday November 19, 2015 @12:32PM (#50962887)

    If I am an Australian PC Maker, I should quickly form a company under a shell corp, register www.dwell.com, then file a claim against Dell stating they are infringing on my name and block access to the site.....

    Just brilliant.

    • Does Microsoft have an Australian branch? If so, expect to see them register or buy www.googel.com.au any day now. And as a defensive measure, they may also want to pick up www.bong.com.au -- although that one may raise some eyebrows.

  • Section 115A didn't exist in 1968, therefore the letter of claim is incorrect and probably unenforceable in the federal court.
  • So follow the LAW (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dacullen ( 1666965 ) on Thursday November 19, 2015 @02:15PM (#50963923) Homepage
    In the demand letter, Simond's actually quotes the appropriate legal action that they should be taking: Get an injunction. Simonds undoubtedly recognizes that their case for a copyright injunction is weak and is trying for an end run by running over s small ISP with hopes of using their acquiescence as a tool to enlist more ISP's. Look at the CHM site, I get why Simond's is fighting mad. So they're beating up the nearest 98 pound weakling they can find in an effort to "do something NOW"
  • Hooray for Hollywood used to mean something positive. Now it refers to the copyright industry destroying the Internet bit by bit. Anyone thinking that Australia decided to do this all by themselves without massive pressure from the US Gov't = USTR = Hollywood, please read up.
    • Actually, it was just a song [wikipedia.org]. Still is, in fact. It's just a song, man. People aren't running around yelling "Hooray for Hollywood in any context, good or bad.
  • With the way the copyright section is written copyright rulings in one jurisdiction will be applied in others. It doesn't apply in this case since it's blocking at the ISP. But having something called a copyright infringement in Australia lets a company go to a Canadian ISP and have content taken down even if it doesn't infringe on copyright in Canada.

    In this case the Australian company should have just filed a complaint with ICAAN to get the domain moved to them as the Indian company was obviously trying t

When we write programs that "learn", it turns out we do and they don't.

Working...