Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Studios Sue Oz ISP Over Allowing Piracy

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the you-can't-make-this-up dept.

The Internet 400

Da Massive writes "Leading Hollywood film studios Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Disney Enterprises are suing Australia's second largest ISP, iiNet, saying it's complicit in the infringement of their copyrighted material. According to a statement of claim, 'the ISP knows that there are a large number of customers who are engaging in continuing infringements of copyright by using BitTorrent file sharing technology.'"

cancel ×

400 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Criminal intent? (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832267)

This is the age old debate where possession of a tool is equalled to necessarily having the criminal intent to use it to commit acts you know are ilegal. Next up - watch hardware stores get sued for selling hammers that can be used by thugs and crooks to mug people by hitting them over the head. When will shoe stores get sued for selling boots and shoes that are painful to the person receiving kicks in the ass?

Re:Criminal intent? (1, Flamebait)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832301)

It's not that simple. There is a well-established non-violent market for hammers. For Bittorrent, use of the technology to do legal things like download Linux ISOs is statistically negligible. It's a technology that for most people is identified with getting copyright films, music and e-books for free. Now, I download stuff I watch to listen to or watch frequently, but I don't think this argument against the media companies works.

Re:Criminal intent? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832419)

11 million users downloading patches from Blizzard for WoW, movies too. Many sites sharing demos and trailers also use bittorrent.

Just because they pretend it's a magical piracy device doesn't mean that one set of bits is somehow different then the other set of bits to the programs.

Re:Criminal intent? (3, Informative)

JWW (79176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832867)

Every version/patch I have downloaded for NeoOffice has come from Bittorrent.

Bittorrent has a plethora of legal uses.

Re:Criminal intent? (4, Interesting)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832993)

When I needed AdAware to remove a nasty spybot, my bittorrent client was the only thing that worked (because the spybot was blocking browser downloads).

Re:Criminal intent? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833205)

Crunchyroll.com is a website that uses bittorrent to stream H.264 encoded anime episodes at a quality far above hulu and yahoo. So yes, I agree that there are tons of legitimate uses.

Re:Criminal intent? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832987)

People dont get convicted of crimes because its statistically likely that they did it.

Re:Criminal intent? (5, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832755)

Riiiiight, because my client who uses Amazon S3 to originate huge software packages that are distributed over Bittorrent (a feature built into S3) is obviously committing some sort of criminal act by using the Bittorrent protocol.

Get over yourself. Next you'll outlaw fire extinguishers because I can beat someone over the head with them. Go after the crime not the tool.

Disclaimer: Personally, I think media companies have perpetrated a copyright land grab long enough. Fuck 'em.

Re:Criminal intent? (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833047)

>>>Go after the crime not the tool.

Would it be acceptable if I went after the RIAA CEO with a BFG? (Democratic Party Founder Thomas Jefferson says, "...the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants...")

Why waste ammo? (3, Funny)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833173)

>>>Go after the crime not the tool.

Would it be acceptable if I went after the RIAA CEO with a BFG? (Democratic Party Founder Thomas Jefferson says, "...the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants...")

Well, I'd nullify if I was on the jury when you went to trial, but why waste ammo? I've got a tire iron autographed by Tonya Harding I'd be willing to lend you.

Re:Criminal intent? (1, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832783)

Even though guns are used for killing 90% of the time, that doesn't change the fact they are still useful. Like when I deterred a thief from stealing my car (last week) or when I rescued my girlfriend from a Philadelphia mugger (about ten years ago). Guns can save lives as well.

Same logic applies to bittorrent. Or blank tapes. Or blank CDs. Yes they are mostly used for piracy, but they also have useful purposes as well, and that's why they remain legal.

Re:Criminal intent? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832829)

Even though guns are used for killing 90% of the time

your fearmongering is hilarious. name your statistical source, or shut your pie-hole.

Re:Criminal intent? (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832903)

Try reading the WHOLE message, okay? Stupid anonymous coward.

Re:Criminal intent? (-1, Offtopic)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833117)

And what if the criminal also had been armed? What if the situation was escalated?

Would the gun still save lives? I'd argue that the only thing that saved lives there was chance.

I'm hoping that one day there won't be any weapons designed only to kill.

Re:Criminal intent? (3, Insightful)

armer (533337) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832793)

For Bittorrent, use of the technology to do legal things like download Linux ISOs is statistically negligible.

Show me your numbers. Provide a link so that I can look at these stats too please...

Re:Criminal intent? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832801)

And films, music, and e-books are statistically negligible when compared to, say... porn. What's your point??

Re:Criminal intent? (1)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833165)

Not true. There are many legit companies using Bittorrent as the underlaying protocol for transferring large files like for example, Blizzard's World of Warcraft uses BT to transfer updates.

Re:Criminal intent? (2, Interesting)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832325)

When will shoe stores get sued for selling boots and shoes that are painful to the person receiving kicks in the ass?

Gotta remember though, they're starting in Australia, which is a good idea considering their government's attitude on the internet and the freedoms provided therein. Interesting to me that they've started there. If it works there and the government buys into it, then look for it to spread to the other overly conservative nations. (I'm looking at you Russia)

Re:Criminal intent? (2, Insightful)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832999)

wait, iiNet wasn't the one actually experimenting the new Australian filtering technology? This lawsuit is a HUGE win against such filtering protection... or not? Am I missing something?

Re:Criminal intent? (2, Funny)

RDW (41497) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833019)

'If it works there and the government buys into it, then look for it to spread to the other overly conservative nations. (I'm looking at you Russia)'

India is already pursuing a vigorous anti-piracy policy in cases of clear criminal intent, a move that has received international approval and calls for the wider adoption of such measures:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7739171.stm [bbc.co.uk]

"The United Nations and international community must decide how to solve this grave problem (of piracy). They must be more forceful in their action," Mr Choong said.

He said that action should have been taken "years back or even last year when piracy was just starting - it's clearly getting worse and out of control".'

Re:Criminal intent? (5, Insightful)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832561)

They should sue the CD/DVD recorders companies, since they encourage piracy, much more than BitTorrent itself.

Sure, it's useful for doing backups ;-)
And it would probably be like shooting in oneself foot, since Sony sells DVD recorders.

Re:Criminal intent? (2, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832641)

I have no doubt they would have sued the CD/DVD recorder companies if the precedent hadn't already been set by their failed lawsuit against the VCR manufacturers.

Re:Criminal intent? (4, Informative)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832833)

That didn't stop them. Even though they lost the Betamax case circa 1980, they still sued Digital Audio Tape (DAT) and kept it out of America. Then they tried to sue Digital Compact Cassette and Minidisc, which led to inbuilt copy protection of these devices.

They will never stop. They fear losing their jobs and that's one powerful motive.

Then they wil sue themselves (2, Insightful)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832727)

Remember that SONY (grrrr) produces lots of Films./Music through its plethora of subsidiaries but also makes CD & DVD writers.
Now that I come to think of it, don't they also sell a BluRay drive capable of writing content?

They (the RIAA/MPAA/etc) lawyers are being very careful but sooner or later they are going to come a cropper. It looks like they are targetting the carriers outside of the USA who don't have 'common carrier' immunity. All they are going to do is make more and more people pissed off at everything that comes out of the USA.

They can sue me(if they like) for using Bit torrent because in a few days Fedora 10 will be released and I will be seeding it once it is out in the wild but they ain't gonna win.

Re:Criminal intent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832607)

AFAIK, this isn't based on intent, it's based on actual infringement. If they're suing just because there's a lot of BT traffic, then yes, they're suing based on intent and it's a flimsy basis on which to sue. But admit it, they're almost correct in saying a lot of the stuff they claim copyright on is being transferred over the net. And if they're suing a company for allowing that, then they have - in all honesty - a potentially valid reason to sue.

I think I should sue, based on copyright as undue infringement of free speech. There's a case there, too, I think.

Re:Criminal intent? (3, Insightful)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833043)

It's a valid reason to sue the infringers. The ISP should be no more responsible than the phone company is for not doing anything about the two people discussing an assassination attempt.

Re:Criminal intent? (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832865)

well its a sad fact, and they think cause they send a notice to the isp they should roll over and take the (@#* and give up users accounts info on nothing more then an allegation. They believe cause they are big companies their word is a good as DNA evidence in these cases. Least some isp's like iinet won't roll over and screw their customers over on evidence even i could tear apart in court, and i am as quality to be a lawyer as i am to be a nuclear reactor tech

Re:Criminal intent? (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832989)

Not only that you can use shoe laces to strangle people. Think of the children...etc.

Deliver or shut up! (3, Funny)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833001)

Until the Hollywood studios are ready, willing, and able to deliver their newest products, very inexpensively, to people living in tiny towns 700 miles northwest of Perth, they should stop hassling the people who are actually presently doing this.

So they're using the courts correctly (4, Insightful)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832289)

They think something is not legal. The opposing party does not agree, so they take it to the court.

This seems to me exactly the situation where you'd want people to use the courts. Australia's a democracy. Everybody has the right to complain, and they may be right when they complain. Even Disney.

Call again when you have a verdict. Then you have actual information to report.

You keep using that word.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832483)

"This seems to me exactly the situation where you'd want people to use the courts. Australia's a democracy. Everybody has the right to complain, and they may be right when they complain. Even Disney."

What does being a democracy have to do with taking things to court?

If you wanted to talk about a democracy, you'd say that Disney (et al) would propose a law and allow every person to vote on the merits of that law.

But trying to get a ruling from a Judge instead of working with the legislature strikes me as *undemocratic*.

Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (3, Insightful)

MaXMC (138127) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832293)

Why don't do this to all the ISP's in Sweden?

2.6 Million Swedes apparently pirate software, music and movies every day. That's almost 1/3rd of the populace.

They make huge profits from this but in no way are they trying to hinder the use of p2p, well some try to filter it but that doesn't help very much.

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (4, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832399)

Because the studios obviously think the Australian government is more likely to roll over and do what they want than the Swedes?

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (1)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832881)

Or perhaps because Australia is filtering their content and losing their common carrier status?

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833145)

myth.

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (3, Interesting)

Tx (96709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832407)

It's only a matter of time. It will happen first in the countries who's current laws and governments make it most likely to succeed. The rest of the world will follow in due course.

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832639)

The rest of the world will follow in due course.

Ah, this explains how when I woke up this morning all countries had the death penalty, this afternoon there were no speed limits, and tomorrow I'm due to sacrifice my firstborn child after an edict from some leader of a tribe in south America. This automatic copying of laws from other countries is making life rather awkward.

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (2, Interesting)

Tx (96709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832787)

We're not talking about copying laws, we're talking about filing lawsuits, do try to pay attention. Obviously it makes sense for the studios to file such suits in the countries where they are most likely to succeed first, before filing in other countries.

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833133)

Correct. Once they have precedent they can stand before an U.S. or EU judge and say, "We won in Australia. You should follow their decision and comply with international law," or something similar.

(Of course I've never understood why foreign law should have any influence on U.S. law - the People's Constitution is the only supreme law that should matter here. What happens elsewhere should be irrelevant.)

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (2, Informative)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832859)

Brought to you by Globalism.

Globalism, when greed at home is not enough.

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833057)

Ah, this explains how when I woke up this morning all countries had the death penalty,

Death penalty is not being lobbied by the international media corporations.

this afternoon there were no speed limits,

Death penalty is not being lobbied by the international media corporations.

and tomorrow I'm due to sacrifice my firstborn child after an edict from some leader of a tribe in south America.

Sacrificing your firstborn child is not being lobbied by the international media corporations.

This automatic copying of laws from other countries is making life rather awkward.

Luckily, it only applies to laws which the international media corporations want passed.

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833069)

There is no economic interest behind the death penalty, no speed limits, etc.

Re:Why not all the +10Mbit/s ISP's in Sweden? (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832821)

Well no. The reason that some things are forbidden but not enforced is that enforcement would be more expensive than the damage done by the crime.

So piracy is dependant on "most" people being entirely fair to studios. If it ever threatens their survival of course you're right.

But once piracy grows too large you have only 2 choices :
1) enforcement of copyright laws, irrespective of the means
2) no more production except for ideological reasons, or by way of a commercial (say "why stoning women is good for them" by your "friendly" neighbourhood imam)

Just like enforcing theft is not socially acceptable until it happens on a large scale with consequences big enough to justify the inconvenience to fair people.

It's all in the price, you see. The scary ways of enforcing copyright are currently too expensive, in votes, in police budgets, in ... and foremost in the inconvenience they'll cause everyone. If that changes, expect "draconian" laws.

All the infrastructure for very draconian systems is already in place. The price, in votes, in budgets, in interference, is simply too high for the moment (you might also try to vote republican, since they have a much lower threshold for acceptable interference of the government). You know, like actual CO2 policies. People want to implement them, but can't pay up.

Thank God we live in a democracy.

Conclusion : you want to keep pirating, or simply "surfing free" ? Make sure nobody else in your neighbourhood does it, thereby lowering the rewards of any potential enforcement. Lower the damages.

Of course economic theory states that that is impossible and that the group of people not playing fair can only grow over time. It also grows exponentially, thereby making 100% sure that at some point the threshold that necessitates draconian enforcement will be crossed. In other words, piracy can only expand and explode. The explosion at some point costing so much as to make sure that even a 99 year old coma patient would vote for draconian enforcement of copyright.

AAPL falling like a ROCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832307)

Giving up its ghost

Blame Newton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832595)

It's all his fault.

So What? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832313)

the ISP knows that there are a large number of customers who are engaging in continuing infringements of copyright by using BitTorrent file sharing technology.

So what? McDonalds also knows that there are a large number of customers who are engaging in continuing infringements of copyright by using BitTorrent file sharing technology. So does Ford. Smith and Wesson know that they have customers who engage in murder and robbery. The phone company knowingly sells phone lines and number lists to telemarketers.

It is not the company that is doing evil, but the customer. Go after the customer.

Re:So What? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832861)

Ah, but when they do that, the public goes all up in arms against that too, because they go after children, or the elderly, or handicapped.

Is USPS liable for mail fraud? (4, Insightful)

usul294 (1163169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832331)

It's not the ISP's job to force its users to use its product legally, take any product that can be used to commit a crime, is the provider or the user at fault?

Re:Is USPS liable for mail fraud? (5, Interesting)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832507)

They are liable as long as they are considered a content provider.

As soon as the ISP's started filtering traffic they didn't like and affecting what data is on their network, they became content providers and could not ask for immunity. If they were to stop filtering/blocking/etc what goes over their tubes, they could probably ask to not be considered a content provider and then what happens on their tubes is not their fault; they would be just offering a service.

(This is how I see the US working; AU might be a tad different)

Re:Is USPS liable for mail fraud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832565)

It's not the ISP's job to force its users to use its product legally, take any product that can be used to commit a crime, is the provider or the user at fault?

One of these days, I hope some ISP gets irritated enough that they decide to filter everything by the corporation[s] demanding magic solutions to copyright infringement.

The highly touted but rarely used "nuke it from orbit" strategy. The kind of vanishing act that would make Stalin's censors proud. Not only movies airbrushed off the internet, but entire media conglomerates.

The ISP would obviously lose customers, but so far, nobody has really returned fire effectively in the corporate war the media companies have started. It's been a battle of lawyers so far, and any ISP big enough to seriously push back already has their business interests entangled with the **AAs of the world.

Re:Is USPS liable for mail fraud? (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832589)

For more info, DMCA Section 512 - Safe Harbor http://www.benedict.com/Digital/Internet/DMCA/DMCA-SafeHarbor.aspx [benedict.com]

Re:Is USPS liable for mail fraud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832753)

For more info, see "this case is in Australia where the DMCA does not exist!"

Re:Is USPS liable for mail fraud? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832635)

Yeah, and sue Fruit of the Loom too, since it turns out many criminals wear underwear.

As frightningly evil... (1, Troll)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832371)

as this corporate behavior is, all you scumbags violating copyright to save a buck provided the excuse. (Although I must admit, I've never actually observed copyright violations via internet - the teens around here make "mix" CDs of their favorite tracks to give to their friends, but don't share stuff online.)

Re:As frightningly evil... (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832553)

The problem is that it is now easier to download a movie than it is to go to the video store, find a movie to rent, rent it, then return it. Consumers tend to search for the most convenient and cheapest way to get something. The Internet pretty much takes a away a lot of hurdles, so why not use this as an opportunity?

Re:As frightningly evil... (3, Interesting)

Toll_Free (1295136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832693)

Because other companies HAVE embraced the technology, and people are still pirating it away.

I mean, Netflix on Demand, Blockbuster via mail, Netflix via mail, etc.

It's not that it's so much harder, it's that the economy sucks, we have a bunch of wannabe rich people driving around in 80 thousand dollar cars that can't afford them, pinned the cost on the interest in their house, and now we have BIG problems dealing with that.

They DON'T HAVE the money to go out. The current generation thinks everything should be free (to them, at least). Their is no difference in bittorrent for legal and illegal use, etc., etc., etc.

People don't WANT to pay, and enough lames figured out how to use BitTorrent.

No distro groups are using bittorrent, they still use encrypted FTP. Bittorrent is for the lames without FTP leech accounts.. Read that last statement as "for the masses who have no technical skills or anything else to add to 'the scene'".

That's the problem with your statements... They are completely ignorant. Look at the current economy, and tell me we have a bunch of people in the USA that WANT to pay their own way.

--Toll_Free

Re:As frightningly evil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25833189)

Toll free, Troll: free.

Re:As frightningly evil... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25833233)

No distro groups are using bittorrent, they still use encrypted FTP

Excuse me?
apt based distros can use apt-p2p.

Debian:
http://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/

RedHat's Fedora:
http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

Ubuntu:
http://torrent.ubuntu.com:6969/

Slackware:
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/41880700/Slackware?tab=summary

I suppose my legal use of Bittorrent isn't an anomaly after all.

Re:As frightningly evil... (5, Interesting)

siddesu (698447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832581)

As frighteningly scary this copyright violation behavior we hear about all the time is, all those corporate scumbags who have for years been pushing for the privatization of culture and are step by step chipping at the rights of societies worldwide to enjoy the public domain (which is the fix for the economic damage the copyright monopoly inflicts in the short run) provided themselves the fertile ground for these violations by not adapting to new technologies, and ripping off the customers as hard as they could.

so, there you go.

Re:As frightningly evil... (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832597)

In the interest of saving time, I will go ahead and get off your lawn so you won't have to ask. Good day, sir.

Re:As frightningly evil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832737)

Complain all you like, old man, it makes no difference. Us pirates will keep getting what we like without paying a cent to no stinkin' companies for their artificially priced goods. And whose gonna stop us? The courts? The companies? You? Ha! Face it, we can't be beaten. Nothing you throw at us is going to stop us from sharing what we want to, when we want to.

And save your crocodile tears about hurting artists - the end of copyright will hurt real creativity about as much as copyright hurts file sharing.

Re:As frightningly evil... (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832763)

all you scumbags violating copyright to save a buck provided the excuse

Excuse? I don't think anything has been excused. I certainly won't pardon the listed companies for filing a lawsuit which _should_ be found frivolous.

If not, what's next? The phone company should listen in on your calls to make sure you're not singing copyrighted songs on the conference call?

The used car dealer should be held liable because black-hooded blokes use their cars as escape vehicles after robbing a bank or two?

More challenging opponent (3, Insightful)

pzs (857406) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832387)

At least they're not suing a 17 year old with a broadband connection for a change. Maybe the ISP will have enough money that they can actually make a proper fight of this. That might mean we can finally have the argument aired carefully enough the general public can hear both sides.

I agree with what somebody else said about hammers, but I don't think most people yet understand that argument. It will be great for the debate when more people do.

Re:More challenging opponent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832789)

True, but if the ISP wins (and as others have pointed out, the studios have carefully picked the best country, hoping for a precedent), it won't help the 17-year-olds at all -- the ISP is only going to argue for something like common carrier defense - they aren't responsible for the actions of users.

Sue me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832395)

"..the ISP knows that there are a large number of customers who are engaging in continuing infringements of copyright by using BitTorrent file sharing technology"

I also know this. And now it seems the studio also know it, since they claim it. So they should sue themselves too.
This suit is like suing the knife manufactureres for someone choking with steak. It's like suing your mom for being a douchebag. It's like taking a bike from a little girl, and beating her over the head with it. Let the analogies roll...

Countersue (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832397)

Can someone sue last century fox if a psicopath starts killing people using a movie as inspiration?

Re:Countersue (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832735)

I'm sure the victim's family would try if it was made common knowledge that the film was inspiration. Whether they'd get anything is another matter. It's psychopath by the way.

I had the same attitude from EA.. (4, Interesting)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832403)

.. when I asked them how I could make back-ups of my games so I don't have to cause damage to the originals to install them ( some 20 odd CDs for 'The Sims 2' ). They told me I couldn't because, and I quote:

"You cannot create backup copies of the discs because this would allow a person to freely distribute copies of the game, which is something EA does not allow."

My reply was similar to some other posts here:

"I have no intention in distributing the copies, I merely wish to protect my investment by not using the original discs and therefore reduce the chance of damage to them. Denying me the ability to do that based on the _possibility_ that it can be used illegally is unfair and unjust.
By the reasoning you have displayed, knives are not permitted to be sold as they can be used to injure or kill someone ( which the law does not allow ), along with plastic bags, rope, water, scissors and plenty of other items you can find in any house. However, this is not the case."

In this case, it is "You are providing a service which allows people to do naughty things amongst other, legitimate activities. We are going to sue you."

Re:I had the same attitude from EA.. (2, Insightful)

Toll_Free (1295136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832765)

The problem is, you purchased the disks, and knew they where protected.

Speak with your wallet. It's all corporate understands.

No, if they put copy protection on the CD/DVD, then you cannot circumvent it, it's illegal. Don't like it, don't purchase that companies games.

Simple, really. A company has the RIGHT to put out a product they want to. They also have the right to protect that product in as much as they legally can.

Just because you don't like the delivery mechanism is no shame on them, it's more shame on you for bitching about it, instead of actually doing something about it (like taking the games back, sending a copy of the return receipt to EA, organizing a thousand other people to do the same).

That's how you organize something, not sit on the internet bitching about it and writing nocd cracks for your personal game library. Game companies don't UNDERSTAND that, cuz they can't SEE the direct results of it. Vote with thine wallet, and things get put in a LOT bigger perspective for shareholders.

--Toll_Free

Re:I had the same attitude from EA.. (1)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833039)

My point.. I think you missed it. I should be more clear in my posts.

Besides, eventually someone from EA told me I can just copy the files off the CDs and install it from the hard-drive which, to me, is a perfectly fine resolution to the issue I had contacted them about ( avoiding use of the original discs for installation) and will also allow me to resolve a secondary issue ( minimising user time spent installing it ).

And I have voted with my wallet. I'm not buying any of the latest EA offerings due to objections to the anti-piracy/DRM implementation. Will EA care? They would probably just blame the "lost sale" on piracy anyway!

Re:I had the same attitude from EA.. (4, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833105)

Right. But then try selling that disc that you purchased... and now you can't. Because you didn't buy a disc. You bought a "license" to use the game.

But try excersizing that license if your disc breaks. You can't, because it wasn't a "license," it was a copy of a game you purchased.

But you couldn't back it up? Oh, yes, because the corporation is just being legally dilligent. That must be it.

Re:I had the same attitude from EA.. (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833121)

No, you don't know that they're protected when you buy them. It's a reasonable assumption nowadays, unfortunately, but the only people I've seen putting any indication of their restrictions on the box are products using Steam.

Re:I had the same attitude from EA.. (1)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833249)

Actually, I was in GAME the other day and while browsing I foudn something ( Dungeons & Dragons 6 or something ) and while I was reading the blurb there was a sentence underneath it reading something like:
"This game includes copy protection software which may interfere with other software and hardware on the PC."

I promptly put it back on the shelf.

Re:I had the same attitude from EA.. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832873)

How exactly do you plan to make backups of the discs without 'using' them? If you only need to have the discs in the drive to install the game and not to play it, then what difference is there? A better backup solution would be to back up the game folder after it's installed anyway, then you won't have to go through tho whole 20 disc reinstallation. You could presumably just install the base game for the appropriate registry settings (if it even needs them), and then copy back the backed up directory to get back all your expansion crap.

And why did you even bother to ask? Just make the damn copies and use them if you're that worried about damaging the discs. EA is never going to come over and bitchslap you just for using copies of the discs as long as you actually bought the originals. If you start phoning them and making a big deal about it, they might take more notice of you though. You have no reason to feel guilty if you really are making the backups for personal use, and I'm pretty sure you're covered by copyright law in that case anyway (but IANAL).

Re:I had the same attitude from EA.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25833023)

A better backup solution would be to back up the game folder after it's installed anyway, then you won't have to go through tho whole 20 disc reinstallation.

You've obviously never installed an EA game before in your life. They don't have a base installation directory of which everything installs into, instead it is spread across multiple directories and that doesn't even include the other components for the game that installs into the system32 windows directory such as the DRM crap of which is a subinstallation process all on its own.

The old 90's method of game backup by copying the game directory hasn't worked on half the games released in 2002 and on, even more so today.

Re:I had the same attitude from EA.. (1)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833195)

Parent: I have been able to copy a Sims 2 installation from another machine and gotten it working ( I may have already installed the original Sims 2 though ). Requires delving into the registry though. I imagine more recent games are even more of a pain!

Grandparent: I did try copying them. After about 20MB I just get I/O errors ( which I believe is a SecuROM protection method ). I asked because I was a customer who wanted to back-up their CDs and it made sense that they would be the first port of call. As you say, I didn't feel guilty because my reasoning for wanting to copy the CDs was honest and I couldn't find out if I was permitted by law/my rights to copy the CDs. If they want to come and inspect all my original Sims 2 CDs, that's fine :)

Re:I had the same attitude from EA.. (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833185)

He never said that he wouldn't use them, just that he wouldn't distribute them. And unfortunately, thanks to the lovely technologies known as SafeDisc and SecuROM, it's not quite as simple as just "mak[ing] a damn copy".

Sue the postal service and shipping companies, too (1)

Artifex (18308) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832413)

For knowing that there are a large number of customers who are engaging in continuing infringements of copyright by using media-sized shipping box technology.

More carrot, less stick (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832415)

We'd pay to see stuff at the cinema, and own it on DVD / Blu-Ray if they'd just stop suing everybody they can find and put the money into funding good script writers and directors.
 
I seriously worry about how the American media industry does business nowerdays.

Re:More carrot, less stick (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832591)

They don't do business with me anymore... They probably chalk it up to piracy though.

Re:More carrot, less stick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832791)

I seriously worry about how the American media industry does business nowerdays.

If the answer was well they wouldn't need lawsuits against individuals. Question answered, so stop worrying.

The thing that gets me is that their products had been cool, available, and addictive. Their job was almost done for them. And they still managed to screw it up.

Lemme ask you this MPAA, when was the last time the video games industry sued someone over copyright infringement?

Follow up question, which industry is obviously winning?

Telephone companies sued? (0, Redundant)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832421)

Next up: AT&T, Sprint, Verizon sued because criminals sometimes use mobile phones to plan and execute crimes!

Re:Telephone companies sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25833113)

Don't forget about Time Warner! Oh, wait...

They Need To Lose This Case Bad (2, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832459)

The plaintiffs in this case need to lose bad. If they win then they control the Internet - which may be what they want, but not what the rest of us want.

OSI model (5, Interesting)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832511)

It would be in the ISP's best interests to stick to layer 3, forwarding IP packets. As soon as you start analysing and filtering them, you're doing a lot more than just being a service provider. The latest trends of demanding packet inspection and performing traffic-based throttling are really destroying the classic model of networking that the internet is based on. It's got to stop, or we'll have something that just isn't recognizable as "the internet" any longer.

If they're smart, they'll just say that inspecting traffic and disallowing certain types of packets is not in their business plan, and they don't have the capability or reason to do it. Otherwise they'll open themselves up to a lot more lawsuits down the road, from both sides of the fence. They'll find themselves having to bend over again and again for anyone asking them for pretty much anything. Instead, the right answer is, "we just forward IP packets, we don't piece them together or look at what they contain."

Re:OSI model (1)

Bishop Rook (1281208) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832683)

But if they don't look at what they're carrying, how will they know if and when child porn and copyrighted songs are being trafficked across their tubes? Won't somebody please think of the children and the megacorporations!

Re:OSI model (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832813)

I hope the day never arrives I have to find a "naked" internet provider (get it? like a naked DSL line?) who I have to VPN to in order to get raw internet, because ATComcasTimeWarner deep inspects and modifies my packets.

Re:OSI model (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832951)

It would be in the ISP's best interests to stick to layer 3, forwarding IP packets. As soon as you start analysing and filtering them, you're doing a lot more than just being a service provider. The latest trends of demanding packet inspection and performing traffic-based throttling are really destroying the classic model of networking that the internet is based on. It's got to stop, or we'll have something that just isn't recognizable as "the internet" any longer.

If they're smart, they'll just say that inspecting traffic and disallowing certain types of packets is not in their business plan, and they don't have the capability or reason to do it. Otherwise they'll open themselves up to a lot more lawsuits down the road, from both sides of the fence. They'll find themselves having to bend over again and again for anyone asking them for pretty much anything. Instead, the right answer is, "we just forward IP packets, we don't piece them together or look at what they contain."

Except that it seems the Australian government of late has decided that the ISPs *must* start doing many of those things to "protect the children". I see this lawsuit as a direct consequence of these new mandates set forth by the Australian government. I believe that the studios, seeing how as the Australian government is requiring the ISPs to monitor and block all these other "bad things", decided it's a great time to belly-up to the trough for their own helping of "block all this 'bad stuff' too, as long as you're about it" ("bad stuff" being defined by the studios as anything they don't like).

Cheers!

Strat

Security Flag enforcement (2, Funny)

alexhs (877055) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832555)

Apparently iiNet didn't enforce the evil bit [ietf.org]

They deserved to be sued.

Re:Security Flag enforcement (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832761)

Just wondering, has anyone actually implemented this (penetration testing wares, etc) or is it just a joke RFC?
HEX

Re:Security Flag enforcement (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833077)

Yes, it's been implemented in FreeBSD the day of publication of the RFC, just to be removed the day after :

Implementation [freebsd.org]
Removal [freebsd.org]

Credit : Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ... so, yes, it's just a joke RFC (april fool's day RFC)

FYI, the IP over avian carrier RFC1149 [wikipedia.org] has also been implemented.

Re:Security Flag enforcement (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832909)

The problem being, they were to block anything with the evil bit set, they would have to block anything originating from those studios.

Because it's iiNet (4, Informative)

Bishop Rook (1281208) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832629)

I'd bet money that iiNet is being targeted because of this story [slashdot.org] .

In other news, iiNet dropped from largest ISP to second largest ISP in Australia over the course of a week&interrobang;

Car analogy! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832651)

So, for car drug transports we can sue the government for building the roads they use?

This guy is a CEO? He makes too much sense... (5, Interesting)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832665)

"They send us a list of IP addresses and say `this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say `well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say `you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'."

Excellent synopsis and way to deal with allegations, as we've all heard exactly how often they get these things wrong. If there is an allegation of a crime it's up to the police to properly collect evidence and give it to the prosecutor's office, or the equivalent thereof in local terms.

He said another problem with this traffic is that is not on its network. "It is transiting our network along with the billions of other things passing across the network which are perfectly legal. We are not traffic cops. We can't stand in the middle of it and stop the individual items that might be against the law. These guys are asking us to be judge, jury and executioner," Malone said.

And just like the Pr0n filters the government seems to be forcing on the public over in that section of the globe, it is completely unfeasible for a common carrier to even attempt this sort of thing. I would be completely pissed if I was blocked from accessing anything on the net. If a site is illegal then take it down, but don't try and filter what comes through my pipeline.

"I think they genuinely believe that ISPs have a secret magic wand that we are hiding and if we bring it out we can make piracy disappear just by waving it. And it doesn't exist."

An attitude all to prevalent among non-techies, that throwing a few filters in place will magically fix things. Unfortunately I run into this all the time, and no amount of rational explanation makes their attitude change. Some times you have to implement the wrong solution while documenting what the right one should be, then go back and do it correctly for twice the cost.
Note: Cleaned up " ` ' in original quote to display correctly instead of in codes.
 
HEX

Sue the RIAA (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832713)

File a counter suit, listing ALL the artists, albums and songs that glorify crime. Since people want to try all the cool stuff, like killing people, mugging people, stabbing, shooting, raping etc. they will start out doing something, that has a low risk of getting caught (i.e. piracy).

If the ISP is complicit, the studioes are even more responsible, as they are promoting the stuff that entice people.

In other news (1)

gxv (577982) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832721)

Blackamil Victims Association is suing Telco companies for allowing anonymous blackmail phone call. Oh wait..

I know that a lot of people infringe on copyright (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832771)

so, sue me ?

lawsuits (1)

alxkit (941262) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832897)

first thing first: iNet should sue iiNet claiming prior art

when will the industries learn? (3, Interesting)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833015)

bittorent isnt evil. in fact, one could argue it's more efficient and cost effective than stamping disc after disc of 'i am legend' and 'happy feet' into a holographic, 3d box, which is then encased in a plastic alarm, which is then tagged with a theft sticker but not before being shrink-wrapped. all this is then whored up with stickers and its own display case the size of a lawn tractor trucked into thousands of walmarts.

fundamentally the concept of a movie must change. it cant be something thats administered in a controlled fashion like morphine, the technology has made that model obsolete. lowering the cost of a DVD to $12 doesnt work either, because the media available online is still free. if you're going up against free, you'd better come out with a stellar product or go home.

the only solution is to accept that either the reign of the film tycoon is over and moving pictures have been forced back into an artform, or embrace online technology and advances like CGI at their actual cost...not pixar's billion-dollar markup.

the whole goddamned film 'industry' is a conglomerate of artificiality, and im afraid the only ones to be stunned by the real prices of their 'art' are ironically the industry members themselves.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>