Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

AU Legal Group Says ISP Allowed 100K Illegal Downloads

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the uncommon-carrier dept.

The Courts 191

In Australia, a court wrapped up day one of what promises to be a 4-week trial of media interests against ISP iiNet. Reader bennyboy64 writes "iTnews reports that Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft investigators claim to have recorded almost 100,000 instances of Australian internet service provider iiNet users making available online unauthorized copies of films and TV programs, lawyers for the film industry said in the Federal Court in Sydney today. The lawyers for the film industry claimed iiNet had done 'nothing' to discourage copyright infringement on its network. iTnews also has a background piece on the case, with a Flash-y graph."

cancel ×

191 comments

Pax (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667477)

Yes, they did. So did I. But htere's a legal distinction between "allow" and "authorise", something AFACT appears to be doing its best to ignore.

Re:Pax (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667643)


Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\FeatureLockdown]
"bUpdater"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\AdobeViewer]
"EULA"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\AdobeViewer]
"Launched"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\AdobeViewer]
"EULA"=dword:00000001
"Launched"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\AdobeViewer]
"Launched"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\Downtown]
"bDontShowAtLaunch"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\software\adobe\acrobat reader\9.0\jsprefs]

"bConsoleOpen"=dword:00000000

"bEnableGlobalSecurity"=dword:00000001

"bEnableJS"=dword:00000000

"bEnableMenuItems"=dword:00000000

Re:Pax (2, Insightful)

remmelt (837671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668091)

Yeah, and what's with the name: Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft?

Copyright Theft? Is that where I catburgle Universal HQ and make off with the copyright papers for the latest hit artist? How can a copyright be stolen?

OMG they did nothing (5, Insightful)

Xiph (723935) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667539)

that they weren't required to do!

Time for me to sue someone for not giving me money!
Saddle up, we're going to Australia!

Re:OMG they did nothing (0, Troll)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667627)

The film industry's lawyers also provided a detailed technical explanation of the BitTorrent system and a demonstration of its technical expert Nigel Carson accessing a torrented file.

If it takes a "technical expert" to download a file it can't be that widespread, right?

Alternatively, maybe iiNet is powerless to stop these "technical expert" hackers.

Re:OMG they did nothing (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667731)

Unless you're called as an eye witness, pretty much all other testifying will be expert witnesses in their field. Just because you could get any teenager to show you how it's done, doesn't meant you'd put that teenager on the stand to testify about torrent technology. That was a very weak attempt at a retort.

Re:OMG they did nothing (-1, Troll)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667773)

That was a very weak attempt at a retort.

Uh oh, they brought in their broadband Internet tech communities hotshot. We can't win on facts now, bring out the crippled midget and we'll play the emotion card.

Re:OMG they did nothing (1)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668547)

That was a very weak attempt at a retort.
You are presumably speaking as one expert to another..

Re:OMG they did nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667819)

Wait a second, Conroy is still pushing for the Great Barrier Firewall so I wouldn't be too hasty to move here.

Re:OMG they did nothing (4, Insightful)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668231)

Roads! ROADS!
Roads fascilitate the transport of untold amounts illegal and/or dangerous materials including : drugs, immigrants, weapons and WMD's.
Close the roads!

Re:OMG they did nothing (-1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668427)

>>>OMG they did nothing
>>>that they weren't required to do!
>>>Time for me to sue someone for not giving me money!

Well if the Obamacare Act passes, and your neighbors don't buy health insurance..... oh never mind. That's too easy.

Re:OMG they did nothing (-1, Offtopic)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668721)

Well if the Obamacare Act passes, and your neighbors don't buy health insurance..... oh never mind. That's too easy.

Heh. The ad on the front page was for this. It was a skyscraper emblazoned with the words "IT'S A CRIME TO DENY OUR CARE" with a subtitle of "Call your senator now." I can imagine it with a subtitle of "Pay the fine, citizen!"

Obligatory Car Analogy... (5, Insightful)

tnok85 (1434319) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667541)

This just in! A group of car insurance companies just sued several state governments because they have allowed drivers to operate vehicles at unauthorized speeds, which led to accidents and higher insurance costs! Insurance companies know this because bicyclists have been watching how fast cars go, and they go way too fast!

Wait a minute, you can actually prove tangible losses from people speeding. That would make this lawsuit a little more feasible than what AFACT wants.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy... (5, Insightful)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667581)

Wait a minute, you can actually prove tangible losses from people speeding.

You can? In the UK it's what keeps local government afloat.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy... (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668441)

I miss the days when Montana had no speed limit, except near the cities. We need more states like that. Interstates were designed for rapid travel (120 miles per hour). It seems silly to limit ourselves to only half that.

Obligatory phone analogy (5, Funny)

LKM (227954) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667659)

This just in! The telephone companies do nothing to prevent people from discussing crimes on the phone! Spray can manufacturers do nothing to prevent people from doing illegal graffitis! Sock manufacturers do nothing to keep people from kicking each other's asses!

Re:Obligatory phone analogy (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668075)

This just in! The telephone companies do nothing to prevent people from discussing crimes on the phone!

Nor do companies making telephones and fax machines for that matter. Then you have pen, pencil and paper makers together with the postal service.

Spray can manufacturers do nothing to prevent people from doing illegal graffitis!

Not even a warning not to do this on the can.

Sock manufacturers do nothing to keep people from kicking each other's asses!

Or together with shoes they can be used by people meeting up to plan or commit a crime.

Culpable Manufacturers (5, Funny)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668355)

Or together with shoes they can be used by people meeting up to plan or commit a crime.

Nike has been abusing this knowledge for years to sell shoe/sock combinations that allow criminals to flee crime scenes at unprecedented speeds!

Re:Obligatory phone analogy (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668479)

>>>The telephone companies do nothing to prevent people from discussing crimes on the phone!

This is probably the strongest argument. I can both download and upload files over the telephone lines, but the company can not be sued. It is not responsible for how its phone lines are being used.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667675)

This just in! I'm the last person on Earth who'd pay for Star Trek, and i'm the first to complain when it's canned!

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667935)

what horseshit.

once I buy a car from ford, they have no way of stopping me speeding.
An ISP through which all traffic is routed can easily prevent most illegal traffic from going through it's system, or cut off and identify the users.

The Ford salesperson isn't sat in the back-seat watching me drive.

But hey, whatever bullshit sarcasm helps you justify theft eh? Welcome to the home of piracy ... Slashdot

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy... (2, Interesting)

Lord Pillage (815466) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667975)

They could install a device (GPS, with possibly a 3G connection so it can get updated info on roads and speed limits) which keeps track of your speed and then chokes your engine if you are speeding so you slow down, so yes, there are ways they could do it. But as you can see through this analogy it reduces the value of the purchased good: the car or the internet connection,

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy... (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668301)

yeah. and who pays for that?

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668499)

Even better they could just attach the GPS directly to our bodies. You speed - you get an instant ticket sent to your home. Walk on the grass? Instant fine. Break into a bank, store, or other private area, the police will be dispatched.

I think this is a reasonable proposal. We will, at last, know peace in our time.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy... (2, Informative)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668409)

once I buy a car from ford, they have no way of stopping me speeding.

Actually they could, by installing some extra hardware in the car. Which you as the customer would end up paying for.

An ISP through which all traffic is routed can easily prevent most illegal traffic from going through it's system,

This costs the ISP more than simply routing the packets. Much bigger costs than involved with the car example. Since whilst a machine can work out the speed of a vehicle in can't tell the difference between "legal" and "illegal" data. Costs which will be passed on to customers.

or cut off and identify the users.

The other big costs will come when (not if) the ISP gets sued for breach of contract for cutting people off without cause.

Er, well spotted. (3, Insightful)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667543)

From what I gather, BT neither discourages or is expected to discourage the use of their phone network for things like buying controlled substances and arranging burglaries. That's normally left up to the police.

Re:Er, well spotted. (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667605)

Why go to BT and phones?

Just present examples of the exact same ISP letting people buy anything illegal by mail.

In a movie court, the handsome and manly lawyer would open a portable in front of the judge, connect to a "illegal dvd sale by postal mail" and order 100.000 movies.

Re:Er, well spotted. (1)

theTerribleRobbo (661592) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668069)

Well, almost. They started the case with a film clip of the robbery scene from The Dark Knight.

Re:Er, well spotted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29668291)

Yep, get the ISP shut down for being an IS *Provider* and all their customers go offline. Then, tackle the next one. First thing you know, there is no Internet, because there is no way for ISPs to enforce DRM without increasing their costs. There are many ways to spell "rabid": AFACT, MPAA, RIAA, etc. As long as nations allow this sort of off-target suit to be pursued, that rabid community will use it to try to recover perceived losses and add free enforcement to their repertoire.

Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667567)

" investigators claim to have recorded almost 100,000 instances of Australian internet service provider iiNet users making available online unauthorized copies of films and TV programs" :artical

So, where is it written that a private investigator can lawfully stalk 100,000 other 'net users, ie, without their permission, in advance?

Could iiNet has another (eg, enabling/allowing privacy infringement) case to answer?

They'd better get their users to encrypt all Vuse traffic, from now on... ;-)

Re:Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667645)

Don't be a twerp. If you use a BitTorrrent client, you can find out the IP address of the peers offering a particular Torrent over the network. If those IP addresses belong to an iiNet customer, then you can record the time, torrent and IP address from the safety of your own home without having to do any further sneaky investigation. You personally wouldn't be able to tie up that IP address to a particular user but I'm pretty sure the ISP would have a log which could make that connection. If they didn't have a log, it'd be a pretty shoddy operation.

Re:Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions (1)

fluch (126140) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667981)

Wait a minute: the BitTorrent client gets a list of IPs from the tracker. But who says the list is entirely correct? Who says that from a certain computer/network behind each of the IPs the file in question has really been there/shared?

Furthermore: if for example you collect a list of IPs and bring them to some law enforcement agency, how do you prove (!) that you didn't make the list of IPs and times up?

Re:Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668225)

Furthermore: if for example you collect a list of IPs and bring them to some law enforcement agency, how do you prove (!) that you didn't make the list of IPs and times up?

If the ISP was willing to co-operate, they'd be able to confirm that the user on the IP address was actively torrenting at that time. Seems like iiNet really aren't willing to co-operate in this situation. Whether that's a good or bad thing is left as an exercise for the reader - I don't live in Australia so I don't give a flying one.

Re:Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667783)

Your expectation to privacy goes out the window when you advertise your details, such as IP addy in bit torrent. But I supposed you're the same kind of person who complains when an employer refuses to hire your drunk arse after looking at your facebook.

Re:Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667865)

I have an expectation of privacy that what I put in my rubbish bins goes directly to landfill/anonymous recycling. Were the collection company or any other agent for that matter sifting through my rubbish looking for evidence of illegal activity then I think I'd have a case against them for invasion of privacy; as far as I know in most of the western world such activity is considered very dodgy on the part of the investigator if not outright illegal without a warrant.

Yet you would seem to argue I am putting my rubbish into the public domain by putting the wheelie bin on the kerb for collection and later scattering on a public landfill...

Re:Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667905)

Have you painted supernatural-3x15.avi on your bin?

Re:Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions (2, Informative)

ImNotAtWork (1375933) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667939)

I'm assuming you don't reside in the U.S. lucky you in this case.
For those that do live in the US there is no expectation of privacy in regards to your rubbish. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35

Re:Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668123)

For those that do live in the US there is no expectation of privacy in regards to your rubbish.

I'm pretty sure that's universal. It's not that his country protects his "rubbish" so much as that he has really silly expectations based on a lack of familiarity with laws.

Re:Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668299)

So you're telling me if you found someone routing through your bins you wouldn't call the police?

Re:Is it legal to record 100K other users' actions (2, Informative)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668345)

AFAIK, it's totally legal in the United States for someone to go through your trash. Once you set it out on the curb/in the dumpster, there's nothing you can do about it, other than get someone for trespassing if it happens to be in your yard. The act of going through the trash is not a crime in itself.

How far does the liability go? (5, Insightful)

misnohmer (1636461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667587)

So the argument here is that the ISP is liable for illegal content exchange. What about the router manufacturer? How about the OS manufacturer? If the traffic was all encrypted, is the ISP on the hook for man-in-the-middle attacks to decrypt and inspect the content, or will they then be liable for invasion of privacy? Is there such a thing as privacy down under?

Re:How far does the liability go? (1)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667639)

Well, Cisco has an adequate legal department, so routers are right out. OS goes without saying. Certificate authorities are again too big, but maybe some poor little ssh project?

Screw it, lets just sue random email users and claim victory.

Re:How far does the liability go? (2, Insightful)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667665)

Screw it, lets just sue random email users and claim victory.

Nice idea. Hire a spambot for a few hours and send out demands for an "out of court settlement" to 100 million randomers. Some of them are bound to be filesharers with guilty consciences.

Oh wait, isn't that bascially what the RIAA has been doing?

Re:How far does the liability go? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667825)

Oh wait, isn't that bascially what the RIAA has been doing?

With the help of the Pirate Bay, since the Pirate Bay likes to insert a sample of random ip addresses into its tracker/logs.

Re:How far does the liability go? (0, Flamebait)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667903)

Oh wait, isn't that bascially what the RIAA has been doing?

With the help of the Pirate Bay, since the Pirate Bay likes to insert a sample of random ip addresses into its tracker/logs.

[Citation needed]

Re:How far does the liability go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29668017)

I believe this may have been sarcastic.

Re:How far does the liability go? (2, Informative)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667677)

You don't have to decrypt anything to figure out the IP address of a peer offering a particular torrent file. The BitTorrent client wouldn't be able to work if it didn't have a list of peer IP addresses.

Re:How far does the liability go? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667793)

True, but that list of IPs doesn't come from the torrent, it comes from the tracker. So either the ISP would have to listen to all your HTTP traffic trying to figure out when you're talking to a tracker, or it'd have to connect to the tracker itself. Both approaches can be trivially blocked with HTTPS and some very light authentication to deny them access. They could answer with MITM and it'd move to proper signed certificates outside the CA system. If the responsbility is put on the ISP's shoulders it'll come to this very quickly, nothing will change except now it's "their fault". Just like you see all the free file hosts are full of passworded files. Perhaps good, perhaps bad but like hell if those hosting know, they don't have the passwords.

Re:How far does the liability go? (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667845)

Ah, OK. I was thinking of the situation we had with MediaDefender [wikipedia.org] , where they reported infringing users to the relevant ISP with a view to having them punished in some way (cut off, throttled, whatever). Not where the ISPs themselves police traffic.

I think you would have to decrypt it. (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668549)

Actually you do have to decrypt the contents, otherwise you have no idea what it is.

If you took videos of your children playing in the backyard and labeled it "Star Wars" and put it on P2P, that's not infringing on George Lucas regardless of what you've called your video.

Re:How far does the liability go? (1)

SwimmerBoy (1612523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667699)

Is there such a thing as privacy down under?

Depends what websites you visit into I'd imagine.

Re:How far does the liability go? (1)

misnohmer (1636461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667763)

So the information about which websites you visit is not considered private?

Re:How far does the liability go? (3, Funny)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667719)

I can't wait until they start suing the electrons!

section 4083:
(1) A person commits an offence if:
They network two computers via:
(a) copper; or
(b) fibre; or
(c) through the ether.

(2) A person commits an offence if they network a media operating device via sneakernet.

(i) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction, and will have the network removed from their possesion; or
(ii) in the case of subsection (2), the offender will have the limbs used in the crime removed from their person.


(3) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory to the commission of a network is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Definition of "sneakernet"
(4) For the purposes of this Act, "sneakernet" is transferring files from a device to another device using removable magnetic, solid state, or optical media; this does not exempt future removable media from the Act.

Re:How far does the liability go? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667829)

Is there such a thing as privacy down under?

Yes, but they call it "Chazzwallaroo."

Re:How far does the liability go? (5, Funny)

Monolith1 (1481423) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667949)

Is there such a thing as privacy down under?

Snigger...

Re:How far does the liability go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29668093)

There is no right to privacy under Australian law. We don't even have a Bill of human rights.

Ban their iTunes (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667617)

It's clearly the fault of the content producers. Without them there would be no infringement.

Anyway, there's an even better solution that the film industry should consider - banning the iTunes etc accounts associated with these IPs. I guess they prefer to damage other people's business though.

New Zealand faces similar problems :( (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667637)

The New Zealand equivalent to AFACT are creatively called NZFACT, and they said that they want to be able to punish people based on accusations of infringement

"[NZFACT] envisaged ISPs would act on infringement notices generated automatically by copyright holders, who would identify infringers by tracking traffic on file-sharing sites." -- Creative Freedom Foundation [creativefreedom.org.nz]

What's more is there's a kiwi group of 10 thousand artists against NZFACT because they're sick of being misrepresented. here's their press release tearing into NZFacT [creativefreedom.org.nz] .

As an iiNet customer... (1)

commlinx (1068272) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667651)

I think they're a great ISP but I can't really understand the policy of not passing infringement notices from AFACT to its customers even if they're not legally required to do so. They could be prefixed that the communication is not from iiNet, the allegations might not be founded and it's merely for your information etc etc.

Afterall if demanded by a court they are going to hand across your details. Personally I'd rather know as soon as possible so I could either refute the claims, take measures to avoid future detection or stop the behaviour that caused it. Or of course I could choose to totally ignore it, but either way I'd at least like to be informed.

Re:As an iiNet customer... (4, Insightful)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667727)

Personally I'd rather know as soon as possible so I could either refute the claims, take measures to avoid future detection or stop the behaviour that caused it..

By "stop the behaviour" you mean stand up and contest the corruption of your legal system which leads to these sort of lawsuits, right?

Re:As an iiNet customer... (2, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667765)

If they were to pass on the notices voluntarily, then AFACT would argue (in court) that iiNet have implicitly admitted that AFACT's methods and behaviour are valid. It's not any more complex than that.

Re:As an iiNet customer... (2, Informative)

goonerw (99408) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668097)

I think they're a great ISP but I can't really understand the policy of not passing infringement notices from AFACT to its customers even if they're not legally required to do so.

iiNet did what any good ISP should do. They forwarded each and every letter to the WA Police for proper consideration. They don't even need to do that.

AFACT already have helped put legislation in place (with the cooperation of the ISPs and the Federal government) to allow a magistrate to request that an ISP retain certain details of the infringement so that when the Police go to investigate the matter, the ISP has retained what they need to answer the Police.

The number of requests made to magistrates since this process was developed in consultation with ISPs and AFACT? Zero. And they're bleating about iiNet not doing enough when they have never followed the process they campaigned for.

Re:As an iiNet customer... (1)

commlinx (1068272) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668159)

AFACT already have helped put legislation in place (with the cooperation of the ISPs and the Federal government) to allow a magistrate to request that an ISP retain certain details of the infringement so that when the Police go to investigate the matter, the ISP has retained what they need to answer the Police.

I'd gathered there was a legal requirement for criminal cases but do you know if it could be used in a civil case as well? Just to clarify my comment I think this lawsuit totally sucks and they should be treated as a common carrier. Therefore they should be exempt from any obligation to discourage any sort of behaviour.

My point is that personally if I'm on someone's target list I'd rather know about it than not. Presumption of guilt is totally wrong, but let's face it I'd be astounded if the majority of P2P traffic was for material for which the recipient was licensed to use. Granted a civil not a legal matter, but they do have some right to protect their material.

What was actually measured? (1)

DigiJunkie (448588) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667669)

Today's discussion seemed to question the measurements of that figure.

ie, was that 100,000 pieces of files shared, 100,000 files being shared, 100 files shared 1000 times, etc.

Dear Australia (5, Insightful)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667709)

The lawyers for the film industry claimed iiNet had done 'nothing' to discourage copyright infringement on its network.

I don't understand. Are your telecom providers forced to actively discourage illegal phone calls, such as bomb threats or sexual harassment? Are your book dealers forced to actively discourage photocopying of books? Are your radiostations forced to discourage people from turning on their radios in public locations without paying STIM? Are your pastry bakers forced to discourage people from throwing cakes at eachother? [youtube.com]
 
Australia, help us understand your line of thought.

Re:Dear Australia (3, Informative)

Zeussy (868062) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667833)

A lot of people reckon its partially pushed by Senator Conroy for getting back at iiNet for them publicly opposing his Net filter plans, see ye olde slashdot article here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/11/1329222 [slashdot.org]

Re:Dear Australia (1)

Monolith1 (1481423) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667957)

partially pushed by Senator Conroy

It has to be said, the guy is a tool.

Re:Dear Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29668213)

The copyright act says a carriage provider will not liable simply because they provide the means by which infringement can occur.

however they can be found have 'authorised' the infringement of copyright, 'authorised' in the sense that they knew it was going on, but did not take active steps to prevent it.

There's also safe harbour provisions in the copyright act which effectively absolves carriage providers if they are participants in an industry code of conduct which deals with copyright infringement, in particular 'repeat infringers' which is not defined in the act.

I would suggest that the term infringers would necessarily mean a judicial finding in which case it would difficult for any content owner to establish a case against an ISP, seeing as - as far as I am aware - no end user in Australia has even been found to be an infringer by a court in this country.

Re:Dear Australia (3, Insightful)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668229)

Believe me, speaking as an Australian this isn't our line of thought. From iinet's [iinet.net.au] news:

For the record, iiNet doesn't support any breaches of the law, including copyright theft. On the contrary, iiNet has led the industry with legal content offerings through our Freezone, including agreements with iTunes, ABC iView, Xbox, the West Australian Symphony Orchestra, Cruizin', Macquarie Digital TV, Barclays Premier League Football, Super 14 Rugby, Drift Racing 2007 and classic highlights of golf's four Majors.

We don't believe we should take any action which could result in the disconnection of a customer's service, based on poorly supported allegations. AFACT are asking us to be the investigator, judge and executioner despite their failure to provide us with tangible evidence.

The approach that AFACT has taken is akin to arguing that if a person were to use Australia Post to deliver a pirated DVD, Australia Post has authorised the pirated content on the DVD by delivering it.

And it seems, iinet's line of thinking, is more along the lines of what sensible aussies are thinking.

Re:Dear Australia (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668309)

Discourage? They shouldn't even have the right to view the content of your data connection, same as your phone calls. You want to listen, get a warrant, same as other communication channels.

Re:Dear Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29668311)

I'm not sure why you're asking Australia? That statement was attributed to a lawyer, and part of becoming a lawyer in australia involves giving up your Australian citizenship. Perhaps your question should be pointed at lawyers, except that's not really fair to Ray.

I know this is slashdot, but... (-1, Flamebait)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667717)

WTF is with this headline?

Re:I know this is slashdot, but... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667947)

A legal group in Australia says that Internet Service Providers allowed 100000 illegal downloads.

What's so hard to understand?

Re:I know this is slashdot, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667993)

Here, have some cheap karma :)

+1 Insightful

Re:I know this is slashdot, but... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668001)

It might be the dowloads. Maybe it's a new measurement unit from the stock market, one Dow Jones load or dowload for short. Actually, guessing what the claimed damages will be 100000 times the value of the companies on the Dow Jones index doesn't sound too unlikely ;)

Re:I know this is slashdot, but... (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668009)

an australian legal group says that isps are allowed to have up to 100,000 illegal downloads!!

Re:I know this is slashdot, but... (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668027)

Well I initially thought it was about a group taking issue with internet users downloading illegal 100KB files... ;)

Headline (1)

bennyboy64 (1437419) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667743)

Dowloads should be Downloads :) -- My mistake.

right ... (1)

c-reus (852386) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667809)

AFACT: "All messengers carrying bad news should be shot".

This is how I understand their approach.

You Know... (5, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667831)

As an internet provider it's kind of a pain in the ass to police the entire internet. It's not at all difficult to refuse to serve a problematic customer. Like the one that keeps demanding that you police the entire internet. You see where I'm going with this?

Here is what I think: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667855)

The RIAA and it's subsideries (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) can get FUCKED!

"make available" vs "allow to download" (1)

molecular (311632) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667913)

The article states iiNet users "made files available". Seems they don't have proof of any actual download taking place.
Furthermore, they probably didn't download the files to fake-check them, or did they?
Is it illegal downunder to offer some bunch of random bits under the name "Family Guy S04E05.avi" ?

Re:"make available" vs "allow to download" (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668333)

hmmm.

1. register the copyright on something of your own.
2. misname it to something currently popular.
3. "leak" it out onto the p2p nets
4. watch same nets for signs of illegal activity
5. SUE
6. profit!!!

OK, I know. Too many steps and I left out the all important: ??? but still...

all the best,

drew

Another kdawson story. (1)

Djupblue (780563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667921)

It is apparently time to exclude kdawsons stories. This submission doesn't make sense.

Re:Another kdawson story. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667995)

It makes a hell of a lot more sense than your comment.

"Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft " (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29667973)

How does one steal an exclusive right to distribute a certain piece of data? Might as well start a Federation Against Change of Archimedes' Constant...

The problem is worse than that! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29667985)

Knife makers enabled uncountable murders by stabbing, and other crimes such as robbery. Firearms makers enabled untold deaths, and other crimes such as robbery. Highways have allowed unimaginable death, injury and property loss. The phone system has been used for everything from death and bomb threats to obscene phone calls!!!

How can these be allowed any further?!

Encryption (1)

Mr_Plattz (1589701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668055)

So what are the Film industries [who are currently chasing a quick buck] going to do when BitTorrent is encrypted end-to-end; which will completely remove ISP's from the equation?

They won't win this case, but they might be able to make a point. However, we're Slashdot, we think in the future and the Execs of these film companies merely think in the past decade and try to profit from that.

- Bring on Truecrypt being globally accepted (for the typical home BitTorrent User)
- Bring on BT Encryption
- Bring on some form Anonymous End Point to BT

Re:Encryption (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668273)

- Bring on some form Anonymous End Point to BT

Yeah, let me know how that works out for ya (The BT client software needs to know the IP addresses of where to find the file parts).

Re:Encryption (1)

SJ2000 (1128057) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668437)

What you and I are saying is much less important than the fact that you and I are talking. Against traffic analysis, encryption is irrelevant.

- Bruce Schneier

A happy customer. (3, Interesting)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668351)

This isn't the first time they've gone to court to protect the rights of its customers, and they are the only ISP down under who is (vocally) opposed to the government's "kiddy porn" filter.

This is precisely the reason why I have stuck with iiNet for over 10 years. They don't give a shit what I do with my bandwith, and use the money I pay them for it to invest in improving their network (and my service).

You would almost think that their job was moving bits around or something. The nerve!

overheard at lunch (1)

agendi (684385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668361)

I was at a conference when I overheard the head of AFACT talking to a senior person in APRA... it was a truly scary experience to hear them talk about how they have to "educate the public before they (the public) try to make torrenting legal" and how they want to ensure that they get a cut of every "performance" and they were using the most liberal definitions of what performance meant. They were portraying copyright enforcement to be the highest good. True believers (AND bad dressers!).

Synonymous? (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668399)

According to AFACT lawyers, ignoring that something goes on (as that ISP probably did) means to authorize, so does that mean that the federal government is authorizing the giant doomsday device I'm secretly building in my basement?

Dowloads (1)

SJ2000 (1128057) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668403)

AU Legal Group Says ISP Allowed 100K Illegal Dowloads

Nice to know we have such great editors like kdawson who always keep their eye on the ball.

The issue use to be iiNet's supposed caching [itnews.com.au] of said content. Possibly to do with this patent? [whirlpool.net.au]

Re:Dowloads (1)

bennyboy64 (1437419) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668443)

My fault! Fixed now.

Responsibility ... (4, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668439)

Anthrax is sent through the post, we don't blame the Post Office.

Death threats are sent through the telephone, we don't blame the Telephone Company.

People commit suicide on the railway, we don't blame the Train Company.

While all these things are prevented, or avoided, where possible, it is not the responsibility of the company to decide what an individual does, nor to take the blame when they do it.

Now apply this logic to ISP and a user downloading something, possibly legal, possibly illegal. (If it's inside a passworded RAR file, who the hell knows which is which anyway).

You can't shoot the messenger because the message he delivers says something you don't like.

Media Industry want ISPs to be their police, because they can't find an effective way of doing it themselves. If policing doesn't work, hell let't just blame the police because
there are so many criminals.

What planet do these Media Industry people live on ?

Their sales model is dead, it is no longer an "Industry" as they don't need to make anything anymore. Just whack out the latest clone remake of some decent 70's / 80's movie, and offer DRM free downloads for $1 ...

"I'd buy that for a dollar !!!".

Australia is a big disappointment (1)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29668629)

Is a car manufacturer responsible if the driver of car chooses to drive under the influence?
Is a pencil manufacturer responsible if a students stabs another with a No. 2?
Is a lock maker responsible if a thief picks the lock?
The Australian government and legal system is beset by stupidity of gargantuan proportions. If the movie industry wants ISPs to invest resources and time monitoring activities of subscribers perhaps the ISPs deserve to be compensated for such services.

Paraphrase .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29668665)

I'm surprised no one has paraphrased the gun lobby motto..........

"ISP's don't illegally download, People do."

Court Case: The People VS The Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29668705)

...in conclusion, the people will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the internet knowingly allowed trillions of spam emails to traverse its networks, costing corporations billions of dollars annually, and did absolutely nothing to stop it! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendent is guilty of the biggest crime in history.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...