iiNet ruling due next week


Source

THE Federal Court has moved swiftly to hand down its ruling on a landmark internet copyright battle between Perth ISP iiNet and a group of Hollywood giants.

Both parties said that they did not expected a ruling on the mountain of technical evidence presented in the trial to emerge for at least a year as it drew to an end last November, but the court today announced that Justice Dennis Cowdroy would hand down his decision next week.

oh

Huge news is that there will be news in a week?

come on legal system, dont let me down again buddy!!!!

and then we will have to wait another year because whoever loses is going to appeal.

yeah probably, what does iinet have to lose though?
are they actually being sued for monies or is it purely the precident that AFACT is after so they can harass more consumers? (read: torrent-ers)

This is going to be massive.

Fingers crossed that this pans out the way I hope.

To me it's a clear-cut case of delivery mechanism versus content.

Australia Post don't check your mail, your ISP shouldn't check your packets.

It has nothing to do with piracy for me - it's about a logical and efficient information delivery system.

I think its a little more complex than that, AFACT are trying to say "Well we inspected your customers packets and we confirmed that they contained contraban"
then iinet(auspost) turns around and says "well we neither confirm/deny that, but we will send the information to the police for you"

It wreaks of heavy handedness with a tough of spinelessness thrown in, they've attacked iinet because they're big enough to matter but small enough to not really have the funds to fight a giant case

ie. AFACT could have attacked any ISP in Australia, Telstra/Optus included - but they didn't

then iinet(auspost) turns around and says "well we neither confirm/deny that, but we will send the information to the police for you"

Actually iinet said "orly, that's great, but we're not the police - if you want the police, you can call them, their number is still 911". Which is, to date, the legally correct thing for them to do!

so this case is more about clarifying who is responsible to handle these kind of "requests" from now on, rather than trying to get someone to pony up cash to line the record labels pockets?

I hope AFACT get their s*** handed to them, really
they've spent a lot of time and money (also wasted a lot of other peoples time/money) trying to blame someone else for a problem that they have basically created for themselves (retroactively selling online music years after napster instead of jumping on the bandwagon early)

"Well we inspected your customers packets

wouldnt there be some sort of privacy issue? or doesnt that matter if its over torrent?

nah, they're saying that because of the fact they were able to upload/download (illegal) media to your pc (via your torrent client), you are at unquestionably at fault

Actually iinet said "orly, that's great, but we're not the police - if you want the police, you can call them, their number is still 911 000".

You mean that given AFACT =

Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft

last edited by Triamks at 16:52:11 27/Jan/10

911 takes you to the emergency line as well

so this case is more about clarifying who is responsible to handle these kind of "requests" from now on, rather than trying to get someone to pony up cash to line the record labels pockets?

Yep. It is 100% about them trying to circumvent the current process (which is extremely time consuming and expensive as it involves them having to go to court or whatever to get the authorities involved, then they have to go to the ISP with the court order, then wait for the ISP to respond, then take the user to court, try them, and then HOPEFULLY they'll win and be able to get damages.

They want to replace that process with getting an IP address, then sending it to the ISP, and making the ISP responsible for policing their users.

They want to replace that process with getting an IP address, then sending it to the ISP, and making the ISP responsible for policing their users.

Do you think they would be happy with the ISP's just banning IP's they send or do you think they like suing for large amounts?

911 takes you to the emergency line as well

So does 112 as a ddi emergency prefix from you mobile which will also bypass the keylock

They want to replace that process with getting an IP address, then sending it to the ISP, and making the ISP responsible for policing their users.

Do you think they would be happy with the ISP's just banning IP's they send or do you think they like suing for large amounts?

They can't ban IP's because the ISP only has limited IP's to dish out statically or dynamically. They can ban users like France I guess, though.

I have a problem with the method that copyright interested parties have in collecting IP addresses as well. It's not accurate enough just to monitor trackers for content requests.

Edit: I agree with dRanged below this post as well that ISP's are profiting from piracy selling their 120GB capped plans and so on. You can argue that you stream financial content and iView 24/7 all you like but I reckon most peeps absorbing caps like this are pirating. I think that iiNet have tried to make steps towards shifting some cash back to these parties with the streaming EPL and their deals with Netflix and so on, but it's not enough.

The Right Thing To Do™ in me still feels like ISPs and piracy are intertwined and mutual benefactors.

On the other hand, they're making squillions of dollars and there's probably a good argument about freedom of information / the right to tape.

It's complex, I couldn't really side either way conclusively :(

They want to replace that process with getting an IP address, then sending it to the ISP, and making the ISP responsible for policing their users.

So to use Pinkys analogy, this would be like sending auspost around to confiscate a CD for example? Or Telstra taking action on a phone user that does something naughty?

Well that's just silly!

So to use Pinkys analogy, this would be like sending auspost around to confiscate a CD for example?

It would be like AFACT sitting in the post office and checking your mail, seeing there is pirated content in there, still allow it to be delivered (because they can't stop it) and then they contact AusPost and say, "Ban this person from receiving all mail, please."

I'm not stupid, I know that these information delivery systems are vastly different.

The way I read it is that they are happy to release content in formats like MP3 which are difficult to protect - then they sook about the fact that their product is difficult to protect. Well, no f***ing s***, Sherlock!

Well that's tops. Idiots.

Isn't there more important s*** happening in the world that these people could be working on?

Justice Dennis Cowdroy

Everyone remember this guy's name. It will be forever printed in the history books for his actions, for good or otherwise. Let us hope.

Fast decision, easy decision.
Case is a truckload of FAIL.

IMO the problem only exists on a large scale because of a global internet and piracy haven countries like China where they don't really care about shutting down trackers/servers.

Anyone come back with a bucket of pirated DVD's from Thailand lately?? They just don't care. And if Customs opens your suitcase and sees a bucket of DVDs, but only one copy of each (i.e., you're not trying to retail pirated material) they don't care either. Good, I support that - they should worry about drugs, fish, wood and plant items.

Piracy technology is becoming easier and easier to use, with SSL/TLS and other protection mechanisms. Meanwhile copyright holders are suing individuals and trying to push their stupid regionalisation.

Their business model isn't fit for our Global Village, and I still think that's probably more than half the problem.

IInet have never said they wont help out the police or block any information from going to police to help with a prosocution, they just said that any requests must come from the police.

As trog said, they are just trying to force the ISP to skip this step, take there word on it when they say someone has stolen there copyrighted material and then disconnect the user.

Because the IINet wont co-operate with them, because they dont have to/shouldnt they are basically saying "well you are responsible for the pirating because you allowed it to go on after we told you about it"

It would be like AFACT sitting in the post office and checking your mail, seeing there is pirated content in there, still allow it to be delivered (because they can't stop it) and then they contact AusPost and say, "Ban this person from receiving all mail, please."

pretty much, except AFACT arent in the post office, they are sitting outside the pirate cd shop getting the details on who orders, or in some cases actualy running the pirace cd shop as a honey pot.

It pretty much comes down to the old the media business havent adjusted there revenue models for the internet age and now they are trying to recover "Lost" income.

There was an article on slashdot a week or so ago saying that they somehow value the download of one mp3 at some ridiculous ammount like 15k because of the "damage" it causes by other people then downloading it from them.

I wonder how much of the illegal downloading in australia is tv series, id say probably more than half, and I wonder how many of those TV shows are actually shown in australia, or even available for purchase from legal places like itunes in australia.

Is it still illegal to get something that is available any other way?



last edited by `ViPER` at 19:02:57 27/Jan/10

if you want the police, you can call them, their number is still 911

f***ing fail.

if you want the police, you can call them, their number is still 911

f***ing fail.

why

Depends on how they do it actually. If they are persecuting people for downloading things, then afact themselves would have been uploading and distributing copies of the pirated material themselves.

Remember the data they have is the actual transmitted files, not that they are merely connected to the BT tracker. What they sent iinet was a DVD full of IP packets.

It's probably more likely they used a modified BT client and actually pulled a complete copy from the iinet user. This was how they did it in the Napster days, though they didn't have the issues of multiple peers.

Justice Dennis Cowdroy

His name is rather close to Conroy, I fear for iinets future.

if you want the police, you can call them, their number is still 911

f***ing fail.

Someone told me 911 actually works in some countries outside the US because TV shows have taught so many people that 911 is the emergency number, has anyone here got the balls to actually try it? Last time I had the opportunity to use it legitimately I forgot to try and used our 000.

Is it still illegal to get something that is available any other way?

I'll assume you mean "unavailable", but that will be an interesting court case when someone finally does get sued for it.

some more food for though: if i don't upload any of my "Linux distros", does that mean that they can't say I'm costing them $15,000? that, and wouldn't that also be considered making content through P2P harder if you don't seed? so arguably your helping the multiple billion dollar movie industry, especially if you wouldn't waste the $30 on a hard copy, only to have your 4 year old chew on the corners and turn it into a coaster.

It's probably more likely they used a modified BT client and actually pulled a complete copy from the iinet user. This was how they did it in the Napster days, though they didn't have the issues of multiple peers.

i doubt it, i got a notice to stop downloading from my ISP who had a letter sent to them with my IP address in it, and i wasn't even %20 through the download.

this is blatant "guilty before proven innocent" heavy handed laws that are trying to be passed through and SHOULD be thrown out in court. weather it does or not is another thing all together.


last edited by myWhiteWolf at 19:59:20 27/Jan/10

have you guys seriously not seen Ace Ventura

I've seen it, but it was so s*** I blocked it from my memory :)

But for seriouslyness it's been that long since I saw it I've pretty much forgot everything about it except for "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a pool man" and "Evidently the killer saw the size of the victim's DICK and became insanely jealous".

I hope afact get their arse handed to them on a plate and I hope the ruling will be so epic that the bitch slap will get them to wake the f*** up to themselves, and that they award iinet damages which will send the c***s broke

I knew the Ace Ventura thing, didn't even think twice about it, thought everyone would know
Except it was funnier in Ace Ventura because Ace wasn't talking about the police in general he was talking about Lt. Einhorn's number.

not dialing 911 in australia should be a sort of intelligence test for whether u deserve to live

bit of a waste ruling out any number beginning in 911 in any area code

on topic, a quick decision has got to mean not guilty, right

^ Dunno what part of it you're referring to?

Anyone come back with a bucket of pirated DVD's from Thailand lately?? They just don't care

http://unix.org.au/~brett/images/phuket/100_1323.JPG
:D

on topic, a quick decision has got to mean not guilty, right

or that they've paid the judge off.

Anyone come back with a bucket of pirated DVD's from Thailand lately?? They just don't care

Forum hero.

they do actually care, but only if you're bringing back multiple copies of the same thing
I declared mine, she went through all of them and I had a duplicate of 1 dvd (from 150+), which she said was fine

they do actually care, but only if you're bringing back multiple copies of the same thing

Thats crazy, how much do you actually pay per DVD?, and why doesnt hollywood care about these sort of piraters? is it because the governments over there dont care? or they dont have TFA's with america like we do?

about $1.50-$2.50 Aussie (2004)

You declared yours? Shiiiiiiiiiit I never bother.

Some places they just have a bunch of dvd covers and you tell them what you want and they go get it from somewhere else (takes about 30mins). I suspect this is more to do with space restrictions and not the po-po.

Other places just have 'em there for everyone to see like any other shop.

they rips of proper dvds or cam s***?

Both would be common. You aren't exactly paying for the image or sound quality with these... or maybe you are sometimes, heh.

Proper DVD's if the movie is out on DVD legitimately otherwise you'll get whatever is happening on the internet at the time (DVDSCR or CAM etc)

Most joints have a TV+DVD set up and you can test them all out.

I had to go to a few places to get all of the ones I wanted, some were complete crap and others were ridiculously well setup
I was able to play them all in a dvd player prior to purchase (except maybe a handful, which I had to just try my luck with - most were OK anyway)
they did accept returns, I took them back to the hotel and tried in the kids room dvd player and if they failed there I swapped them over

I don't get buying pirated DVDs. If you're going to steal it, why pay for it at all? you're just making real criminals more wealthy and getting an inferior product?

because in 2004 the best I could get was 3GB

Yeah I never got buying dvd's either its environmentally unfriendly and those baby seals suffer because of the oil slicks produced so the oil companies could make that dvd

I don't get buying pirated DVDs. If you're going to steal it, why pay for it at all? you're just making real criminals more wealthy and getting an inferior product?

I don't know why others do but I did to get my relatives some dvds. Also I was over there for a fair while so I bought a dvd player from a department store for 20bucks and used that a bit. Try finding a legit dvd store over there in some parts.

They aren't really inferior either. Unless you dig the hard case.

I don't get buying pirated DVDs. If you're going to steal it, why pay for it at all? you're just making real criminals more wealthy and getting an inferior product?

Maybe whoever is buying it doesn't own a PC or their internet is crap? I don't get why people still bother with dodgy cam rips, if I want to see a movie I'll wait and see it in all its glory in full picture & sound quality either on DVD when it comes out (my tv isn't big enough to warrant BD) or if it's a really awesome movie I might go to the cinema but it'd have to be the most awesome movie on the planet for that to happen.