Nov 08 20

Gutless studios have the wrong target

Posted by Jude Willis @ 16:51 26 comments

I have one word for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT). Gutless.

In its quest to justify its own value to its stakeholders, AFACT has decided to choose an ISP with a mere five per cent market share in a landmark court case to somehow make ISP's responsible for the content that passes through their pipes.

It is the same mistaken premise that has Senator Stephen Conroy convinced that the Internet can be effectively filtered at ISP-level without having adverse affects on network performance.

This is not a case about iiNet 'allowing' copyright theft. It has nothing to do with the technical reality of being an ISP. It is about media conglomerates losing control of their stranglehold on the content people enjoy, and desperately trying to stem the tide. Few of these studios who claim to be aggrieved by iiNet's customers have made any attempt to negotiate to sell their content on the web legitimately. They can only blame themselves.

This court case is symbolic. At best it could wipe out one per cent, if not less, of the total number of copyright infringers traversing the web in Australia. At worse, it will be a protracted legal battle that reduces competition for Internet connectivity in Australia by wiping out one of the few ISP's that has managed to grow at Telstra's expense.

If AFACT is serious, if they want to create a true precedent, they would go after an ISP that holds 50 per cent of the market, not five.

So go on AFACT. Take on Telstra's legal team. Then we'll know you're serious.

Talkback 26 comments

Unbelievable Anonymous -- 20/11/08

You might as well sue the main roads authority because people speed... or the police for not preventing it.

This is an unwinnable case, and will do nothing to change the massive indifference that exists towards these idiots.

here we go... Anonymous -- 20/11/08

If these companies got themselves out of the dark-ages and employed some innovation, maybe it would be less of an issue. There are ways to deliver content online that are profitable. America's "comedy central" streams some of its shows online hours after they go to air with a series of ad's throughout the stream - reducing the need (and desire) for people to download the program via torrent portals.

These greedy companies have had it good for to long - now the consumer has hit back, making it known they will not pay ridiculous amounts for often sub-standard content, nor will they wait months and months for content to be available.

Torrent downloads can often be a pain to do - all the media companies need to do is provide a fast and easy way to access content on demand, and pay for it with ads or charge a REASONABLE price for it.

The ABC has done it (ABC iView), why is everyone else so slow?

And please.... for the sake of us all, stop producing crap!

Because the law is ambiguous... Anonymous -- 20/11/08

Like it or not, AFACT have a decent case under the current law. That is because the relevant infringement provisions (specifically, s36(1A)/101(1A), s39B/112E) are so poorly worded and were interpreted so loosely by Justice Branson in Universal Music v Cooper that no one really knows their limits. In addition, our almost wholesale import of the 'safe harbour' provisions (Pt V, Div 2AA) are untested.

But I should not complain. Ambiguous laws make interesting law cases. :)

And with government bent on censorship... Anonymous -- 21/11/08 (in reply to #320116684)

We cannot (unfortunately) expect this (almost communist) government to make this law reasonable. They are so entrenched in their idiotic and limited views that someone should control every aspect of people's lives that they sure want ISP to do police work now. The moronic idea of an overreaching, China-style filter is case in point.

hardly Xiaowei1 -- 25/11/08 (in reply to #320116684)

There is very little merit in the case at all. Any first year legal student should be able to see there is little chance of success for the movie companies. Both quoted test cases have nothing to do with ISP's or providing ISP services. One was a website which promoted copyright infringement, and the other an application which for a while at least promoted copyright infringement, and openly gave access to same. The common theme as recognized in the ratio decidendi of both cases is they both had a main purpose of not only giving access to copyright material, but actively promoting copyright infringement.

iiNet's main business has nothing to do with copyright infringement, and in fact they were kind enough to pass on all information to the Police where need be. They have at no time ever condoned such activity.

Movie companies do not have standing to make summary judgement against another companies clients as if they were a court - due process is required. Infringement simply has not been shown at the required judicial level and iiNet can not be considered to have breached any obligations (i.e. no-one has been proven to have committed any copyright infringement). Once the Movie companies have court judgements stipulating remedies available against iiNet customers, iiNet will no-doubt comply.

A dying business model trying to hold on to its last breath Anonymous -- 21/11/08

This pathetic media industry simply will not accept reality.

Pirating has been around forever, it will be here forever.

Is downloading pirated material highly convenient? no.

Is it free? (you make think yes) but no, many aussies pay out well over $70 / month for higher download quotas.

Is it fast and on demand? hell no.

When are media companies going to wake up? Simply provide a free or even cheap service to watch TV Episodes anytime (as soon as they are released in the states) with a moderate amount of advertising and people will bite. You could even sweeten the pot by going into deals with ISPs to get unmetered content for the users making it even more likely they will pay for the privilege because they can save on expensive download plans.

ISPs win because they arent paying for expensive international bandwidth, network congestion is greatly reduced if mirrored correctly and it goes from being illegal to legal so companies like AFACT can be dissolved and the money wasted on them can be given back to the crying poor media companies.

Once movies leave the local cinemas the same should be done.

The music industry has started to pick up its game, how long for the rest of the entertainment industry i wonder?

Protectionism Anonymous -- 21/11/08

A dirty word here as it should be, but alive and well all the same. But what can you expect? AFACT claim to actually believe pirates line up outside of DVD stores that sell parallel imports so that they can rip the new releases for next Sunday's market. Yep yep yep that's how it works fer shaw. Ms Pecotic, in the eyes of the public you are a mouthpiece for bloated corporationism. You'll never win the hearts of the public because your MPAA bosses simply can't be aggrieved enough in their eyes. In fact, most of us enjoy their whining except when it gets in our way. Why don't they study the porn industry? Now there's a body of media producers that know how to keep up with the times.

Just Like "Fast Tracked", NOT!!! Anonymous -- 21/11/08

If this case gets up and the ISP looses. I'm going to suggest a class action against the Federal Gov for been a pack CONROYS = MORONS .

All the Local TV Stations Keep saying Fasttracked or NEW Series/Episodes, when clearly they are not, Some have even finished up (most on DVD already here in AU).

They the TV Stations then wonder why people D/L them off the net. Its Fast, No advertising, and High Quality (Most even in 1080p w/5.1DD)

Bigswamp (pond) charges from 2.95 per show, that's Just too expensive epically when you don't get to keep it. I can Hire the DVD 4+eps and RIPP it for cheaper than that.

You can even VODcast most shows like "here we go mentioned" I just wish iView @ abc.net.au/iview was higher quality video.

I remember then Joost media was P2P, It was High Quality,Fast, a Few adverts (to pay the bills), but most important of all FREE. It was faster than it is now, It Takes the load off server farms and distributes load evenly (less Lag).

Term FREE states FREE to see content, no extra costs, So your Net connection charges not applicable. unless you Paying $150+ a gig.

Hmm James -- 21/11/08

Coincidence that a few days after the iiNet CEO makes comments about the Communications Minister and his net filtering plan that this case pops up?

If I had my tin-foil hat on, I'd suggest that after the debacle of Conroy et al trying to silence an Internode employee, they're trying a different tack now with the AFACT and iiNet.

Of course, they'd never do that .. would they?

Book-burning ? Anonymous -- 25/11/08 (in reply to #320116718)

I believe Mr Conroy did take offence and this could possibly be a backlash?

Nothing here but barratry Josh Crampton -- 21/11/08

This is a civil suit, which will fail, as AFACT has no legal right to the identities of iiNet's customers. Copyright theft is a crime, of which the offenders must be arrested, charged and prosecuted. AFACT can litigate all they like against iiNet, but to what end? To get names and addresses of people that cannot be released due to Privacy law? It is akin to being a victim of a hit-and-run incident, who then goes on to sue the builder who built the road, and then sue their witnesses for the details of the driver. If AFACT really wants to make a difference then they need only alert law authorities to the matter; after all, copyright theft is a crime.

7 day time limit ? Anonymous -- 24/11/08 (in reply to #320116757)

OK, let's give ourselves a week to vent, and spout legal statements like we're experts. After that can we stick to legally accurate stuff ?

The Copyright Act has said for decades that a party in iiNet's general position can be 'guilty' of infringement in certain circumstances. It has nothing to do with roads or accidents. It's what's been in the Act for a very, very long time.

As a rule, copyright 'theft' is not a crime, and the case is not about getting access to customer names. There's some good explanations at a site called cspcentral if you want to get up to speed.

maybe the way to go Vaso Vukovic -- 21/11/08

would be to offer an optional 'media pack' included in ISPs monthly price which would in return allow you to have unlimited downloads of latest movies etc. from movie industry managed sites.
If a person is paying lets say about 60$-$80 per month (ADSL2), why can't AFACT and ISPs make a deal that lets say 10$-15$ goes to AFACT to provide legal internet media content and ISPs get the rest?? That way people get the movies/series etc. AFACT gets their royalties, ISPs get more customers (would not you for merely the same money??) and we all move forward technologically and as in Industry (this IS impacting IT industry overall I'd say).
instead of suing eachother, work together and get us a deal that people can afford. If foxtel and tivo can do it, why can't AFACT and ISPs?? Is the cake that sweet to share??

P.S. dont get too hang on to figures I've used, they're just estmimates..
P.P.S. with the current budget cuts going arround, I can't imagine anyone in police dept would want to spend any money chasing torrent dowloads.

Who is breaching who's rights here? Anonymous -- 21/11/08

Apparently AFACT has sent the IP addresses of 'thousands' of illegal downloaders to iiNet to notify them of the breaches of copyright or whatever.

How exactly does AFACT get hold of the IP addresses, and how do they know what content has been downloaded to that IP address? Is this content coming down off their own servers? If so, they are responsible for their own security.

How do they prove the identity of the final recipient of the alleged illegal download?

The download material is obviously now in the public domain and accessible. To me, this puts the onus on AFACT to find the person who posted the information, as the copyright breach occurred then, not when someone subsequently downloaded the publicly available content.

AFACT look a lot like desperate bullies to me, going after the easy target in iiNet to try for an easy legal precedent. All ISP's should put aside their day to day business differences and support iiNet in this case - If they don't, and if AFACT gets a legal precedent established in this case, they will all suffer the same fate in the end.

@Who is breaching who's rights here? Terry -- 23/11/08 (in reply to #320116775)

"How exactly does AFACT get hold of the IP addresses, and how do they know what content has been downloaded to that IP address? Is this content coming down off their own servers? If so, they are responsible for their own security."

Download a torrent and you'll see the list of other users (seeders and leechers) by IP address that you're connected to. There's a list of connected users, the name of whatever was being shared, and the time that occurred.

"How do they prove the identity of the final recipient of the alleged illegal download?"

Which is the hard part of the case to prove, unless they can prove that you had the material (and the only way to do that would be to seize machines in a raid) people could easily argue their network was unsecure and someone else must have done it.

They had a PI join up Anonymous -- 24/11/08 (in reply to #320116901)

For one thing, AFACT had an investigator called Aaron Herp join as an iiNet customer and he is supposed to be giving evidence of what he did.

Before anyone spouts nonsense about 'entrapment' it won't apply to that kind of evidence gathering.

Identity of IP address can be flawed, and is.. Anonymous -- 25/11/08 (in reply to #320116901)

Many torrent users utilize TOR technology (The onion router) was provides anonymity of there IP address in favor of another random IP address over the net. Unless AFACT actually traces the source to YOU, then IP address is useless.

Copywrite a property right Anonymous -- 21/11/08

I propose this issue represents the last gasp of copyright lawyers. I mean the issue never existed before mass production - now the profession is trying to brace the dyke of technology. Give up lads & get a real job!!

To put it iin a simple sentence Anonymous -- 23/11/08

If this case is won by AFACT it will only re-affirm the position of Australia as the global village idiot.

good call, Anonymous -- 26/11/08 (in reply to #320116873)

we're on our way!

Well said Anonymous -- 24/11/08

Well said ZDNet!

Absolutely! Rex Alfie Lee -- 26/11/08

Jude Willis, well said. It would be interesting to see Senator Conroy take a stand against the monopoly that is Telstra but they never will, not on this issue or any other.

Stop fighting the future Kimota -- 28/11/08

this isn't about control of copyright, but control of distribution. After all, the comanies fighting these actions aren't the creative minds behind the movies and music. The distributors and tv channels know they are threatened by an internet that allows musicians and film producers to 'broadcast' their product direct to an audience easily and without a cuit to them. We should be seeing a shift to smaller movie and TV companies producing and distributing their own content, musicians uploading their own recordings for distribution and monetising them in different ways.

markl pesce's lecture on 'Piracy is Good' is the best analysis of the future opf interent broadcasting. Big business needs to accept that they are now almost surplus to requirements and get out of the way.

What do you expect? Anonymous -- 01/12/08

If your job and/or source of income were threatened then of course you would fight with every weapon in your arsenal. You cannot blame the copyright owners for doing what they are doing.

They place that this will be decided is that courts. The place that Conroy holds will be decided by the court of public opinion.

The one thing that this court case will do for sure is raise the heat on the arguments for and against ISP based content filtering. If this filtering turns out to be as easy to get past as is rumoured then the people who will look the stupidest will be the government and the supporters (including copyright holders) of the ISP filtering systems.

The people who manage Channel 7 and Co. Jammit -- 06/12/08

It's ironic how the people who manage channel 7 are off in hot pursuit of IInet given that:

The people hwo manage channel 7 -

Work in collusion with "child psychologists" to Deliberately target children - to pressure parents to buy them things; without which they will not be whole;

And they keep them glued to the screen, eating junk food, and buying what ever they are told too; while the people who manage channel 7 profit from raising crop after crop of feel good addicted fat and diseased consumers.

The people who manage channel 7 profit psychologically targeting peope to make them sick, and then they blame the government.

The people who manage channel 7 also sensationalise and trivialise matters of importance, and turn the act of getting things done into point scoring and popularity contests - playing enemies and allies mind games.

The people who manage channel 7 also promote car racing and the sales of gas guzzling "keeping up with the Jones junk" for a buck - even as we start to tumble into the precipice of no return....

They train people to medicate themselves into their graves with sex, food, drugs and gossip; keeping them glued to the screens - in order to make a buck - and then they say "Oh aren't the people who we have shown how to do any thing for a buck bad" when we can catch them out doing what we have been doing for decades......

Lying, cheating, miseading, manipulating adn robbing people... anything for a buck.

As the SS said, "I was only following orders" - and as long as the people who manage and work for channel 7 don't have to take personal responsibility for everything they have done - then they are no different to the nazis - and their responsibility shifting.

And in every individual in channel 7 doing everything they have done and not taking responsibility for it, and changing their ways - they are the ethical nazis of the past, today, tomorrow and the future - for all time.

If everyone had of said, "No" then there would have been no world war 2; and yet, here we are sailing through the cross roads saying "What in the hell has happened - "I made the car, I sold the car and I bought and drove the car..... - and as long as non of us have to take any person responsibility - none of us are to blame."

Oh wait a second.... there are lots of people watching stuff without paying for it... that's it - it's their fault - they are keeping us out of the money loop, they are keeping us from selling them junk food and keeping them glued to the screens, telling them that if they don't have the latest model gas guzzling car - they what will people think of them... they might think they are a loser, a failure - some one who couldn't make it.. up to the standards we set for them as being normal..

The fat, the diseased, the cancer ridden - from eating the **** we tell them too and not getting out and exercising....

The people who manage channel 7 are the liars and thieves. They steal life and health and self esteem - and destroy the planet - all in the name of a fast buck.

Oooo .. frivolous lawsuit !! Anonymous -- 23/12/08

I mean really if someone threw a staysharp knife at you, you would take action against the knife wielder.
Impressively, AFACT is going to sue staysharp.
I don't think they're the sharpest knife in the drawer if they expect to get far.

Jude Willis

Digital Nomad

1) Apple iPhone 3GS 32GB	33 plans	4%
2) Apple iPhone 3GS 16GB	33 plans	2%
3) Nokia N97	37 plans	3%
4) Apple iPhone 8GB	33 plans	1%
5) Nokia E63	33 plans	1%

1) Apple mobile phones	1%
2) Nokia mobile phones	2%
3) Samsung mobile phones	1%
4) Sony Ericsson mobile phones	2%
5) Blackberry mobile phones	2%

Traffic by Jude Willis

Gutless studios have the wrong target

Related stories

Alerts

Talkback 26 comments

Unbelievable Anonymous -- 20/11/08

here we go... Anonymous -- 20/11/08

Because the law is ambiguous... Anonymous -- 20/11/08

And with government bent on censorship... Anonymous -- 21/11/08 (in reply to #320116684)

hardly Xiaowei1 -- 25/11/08 (in reply to #320116684)

A dying business model trying to hold on to its last breath Anonymous -- 21/11/08

Protectionism Anonymous -- 21/11/08

Just Like "Fast Tracked", NOT!!! Anonymous -- 21/11/08

Hmm James -- 21/11/08

Book-burning ? Anonymous -- 25/11/08 (in reply to #320116718)

Nothing here but barratry Josh Crampton -- 21/11/08

7 day time limit ? Anonymous -- 24/11/08 (in reply to #320116757)

maybe the way to go Vaso Vukovic -- 21/11/08

Who is breaching who's rights here? Anonymous -- 21/11/08

@Who is breaching who's rights here? Terry -- 23/11/08 (in reply to #320116775)

They had a PI join up Anonymous -- 24/11/08 (in reply to #320116901)

Identity of IP address can be flawed, and is.. Anonymous -- 25/11/08 (in reply to #320116901)

Copywrite a property right Anonymous -- 21/11/08

To put it iin a simple sentence Anonymous -- 23/11/08

good call, Anonymous -- 26/11/08 (in reply to #320116873)

Well said Anonymous -- 24/11/08

Absolutely! Rex Alfie Lee -- 26/11/08

Stop fighting the future Kimota -- 28/11/08

What do you expect? Anonymous -- 01/12/08

The people who manage Channel 7 and Co. Jammit -- 06/12/08

Oooo .. frivolous lawsuit !! Anonymous -- 23/12/08

Jude Willis

Most Popular

Most Discussed

Latest Videos

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Popular Phones & Plans

Powered by WhistleOut

iiNet BoB Now Available

Virgin Mobile Online Deals

$50 Credit on Selected Plans with 3 Mobile

Free Mobile Broadband Starter Pack

Compare: Mobiles | Broadband

Tags

Reader Services

Popular Topics

Essentials

Sponsored Links

Featured

Services

Around the Network

Around ZDNet Australia

iiNet BoB
Now Available

Virgin Mobile
Online Deals

$50 Credit on Selected
Plans with 3 Mobile