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!

In AU, Film Studios Issue Ultimatum To ISPs

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the bluff-or-bluster-you-decide dept.

The Courts 227

bennyboy64 writes "The Australian court case between the film industry and ISP iiNet drew to a close yesterday after the film studios issued an ultimatum: Take copyright responsibilities seriously or leave the industry. 'Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business.' iTnews has done a short one minute interview with iiNet's CEO Michael Malone as he left the court on the final day. Also on the final day, the judge dismissed the Internet Industry Association's involvement in the case."

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

Oh really? (5, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249726)

'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business.'

Next stop, having DVD-Recorders and VCRs removed from the shelves of your local super store... you know... for providing a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes.

Re:Oh really? (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249766)

To be fair, they aren't asking to stop providing internet. They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility. It is not ISP's responsibility to monitor for such activity, but they should deal with copyright notices when they are send one. Of course, IMO it should be courts decision.

But if we're going for analogies, lets at least keep them on the same level.

Re:Oh really? (-1, Offtopic)

hansraj (458504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249860)

Playing the devil's advocate on slashdot without a preamble of "I hate xyz as much as the next guy but.."?

I hope you have enough karma to burn.

Also, around here the only valid objection to an analogy is that it was not a car analogy.

Thank you for your attention.

Re:Oh really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250054)

To be fair, they aren't asking to stop providing internet. They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility. It is not ISP's responsibility to monitor for such activity, but they should deal with copyright notices when they are send one. Of course, IMO it should be courts decision.

But if we're going for analogies, lets at least keep them on the same level.

Wrong. To be fair, they are asking an entire industry to take on responsibilities for an entirely separate industry.

This would be akin to Gucci telling eBay it needs to police all of its auctions, rather than Gucci itself being required to police eBay's auctions.

It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.

Re:Oh really? (-1, Troll)

Thansal (999464) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250368)

To be fair, they aren't asking to stop providing internet. They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility. It is not ISP's responsibility to monitor for such activity, but they should deal with copyright notices when they are send one. Of course, IMO it should be courts decision.
But if we're going for analogies, lets at least keep them on the same level.

Wrong. To be fair, they are asking an entire industry to take on responsibilities for an entirely separate industry.
This would be akin to Gucci telling eBay it needs to police all of its auctions, rather than Gucci itself being required to police eBay's auctions.
It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.

Wrong. To be fair, they are asking an entire industry to take on responsibilities for processing notices given by an entirely separate industry.
This would be akin to Gucci telling eBay it needs to process all of Gucci's notices, rather than eBay itself being required to police Gucci's auctions.
This is a bullshit attempt to Karma whore on Slashdot IMHO.

Re:Oh really? (5, Informative)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250448)

This is a bullshit attempt to Karma whore on Slashdot IMHO.

Karma whore? Anonymous Cowards can't karma whore.

You're doing it wrong.

Re:Oh really? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250550)

Love it how *this* post got modded informative instead of the on-topic informative post it's replying to.

Re:Oh really? (3, Insightful)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250618)

More like holding gun manufacturers responsible for murders committed by firearms. Or holding the cutlery industry liable for stabbings, especially with kitchen knives. Or perhaps we should consider holding drain cleaner makers liable for poisonings by their products?

The movie industry wants to ignore the legitimate uses of the Internet because they wish us to believe that the harm they suffer from infringement entirely voids the legal use of the Internet?

I don't agree. Let's keep that idea out of the U.S. as long as possible, k?

Thieves.

Re:Oh really? (1)

Smauler (915644) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250866)

It is most definitely not like holding gun manufacturers liable for murders, because our economy can do without guns now. Our economy cannot do without the internet.... It has literally pervaded into every big business in the world. No major industry can do without it. It is fundamental to the current operating of all current big business.

ISP's provide a simple service... or they should do. If my ISP want to regulate what I can and cannot download, I will leave it. That or encrypt, then it's au revoir morons.

Re:Oh really? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250944)

Our economy cannot do without the internet....

But out economy can do just fine without movies. Hm....

Re:Oh really? (1, Interesting)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250974)

The movie industry wants to ignore the legitimate uses of the Internet because they wish us to believe that the harm they suffer from infringement entirely voids the legal use of the Internet?

No, that's the just-beneath-the-surface 'apparent' reason for their actions.

The more likely one, in my deeply-suspicious opinion, is that they, together with government want to suppress the increasingly chatty exchange of information provided by the net and file-sharing.

File-sharing makes everyone a content producer, removing their dependence on thoughtless and unnecessary remakes from hollywood and returns control to the masses, where it belongs.

Likewise, these communication technologies make ordinary people far more difficult to control - they start to organise themselves, to spread awareness of pressing issues and abuses of power, casting light into the shadows where, previously, a cunning opportunist could hide and profit.

Are we to believe that the many independent press releases accidentally over-generalize to state that file-sharing is illegal or that they are part of a co-ordinated smear campaign with the goal of putting the cat back in the bag?

Re:Oh really? (2, Insightful)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250862)

It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.

Comparable to the recent trend of shifting the cost of supporting the users who buy your products - currently manifesting as "the inter-user support forum."

Re:Oh really? (2, Interesting)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250982)

Actions of entertainment industry go far beyond "shifting the cost" or even "sharing the cost".

Forums took over other support means because it is really faster and better. Being cheaper (to manufacturers) it is plain side-effect. In fact manufacturers in some industries still dismiss user support forums and insist on expensive support contracts.

Re:Oh really? (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250058)

The problem is, there is no way to verify if the copyright notice is legit. It's not the ISP's responsibility to verify it either. Thus notice -> garbage. Just like DMCA false claims, which have proven to be inaccurate.

So no, their responsibility does not rely on assuming that a copyright infringement claim is correct, or even to care.

Re:Oh really? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250880)

I have a HDD/DVD recorder that is hooked to a camera on an ROV (robot submarine) and it shut off and told me there was a copyright flag violation. You can't trust a machine to identify copyrighted material. Can't have hundreds of people viewing them to determine it, and they may not recognize it either.

*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250818)

And the car companies should be responsible for hit and runs, bank robberies, and so on... and phone companies should be held responsible for people making threatening calls and phone scams... knife manufacturing companies should be held responsible for stabbings and robberies... gun manufacturers... well, better not go there.

Re:Oh really? (4, Insightful)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250852)

Time to apply the cluebat:
  • infringing copyright is against the law
  • if The Industry has evidence that copyright has been infringed, they should report it to the police (because laws have been broken, and it's the POLICE who follow up on law breakers)
  • if The Industry does NOT have evidence that copy has been infringed, then they cannot reasonably expect The ISP to do ANYTHING

it *REALLY* is NOT a complex problem.

The problem is, today. it's easier and often cheaper to JUST GO AND SUE SOMEBODY FOR BAZILLIONS OF DOLLARS than pursue the issue in a straightforward and naturally legal manner.

Re:Oh really? (2, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250978)

If someone shoplifts and then goes home, does the auto manufacturer hear about it? How about the roads department? Perhaps the makers of the purse? NO?

If someone sets up a hydroponic marijuana growing operation in their basement, is the power company responsible for turning the growth lights off?

Is the phone company responsible for preventing conversations about robbing the bank? Are they an accessory to the crime if they fail? NO again?

The film studios need to talk to the people actually infringing just like everyone else. Why do they think they have a special right to have 3rd parties help them for free?

Re:Oh really? (5, Insightful)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251026)

> They are just saying that the ISP's should be handling copyright notices, because it should be their responsibility.

Why is it the ISPs responsibility? They don't work for the music industry, and last I checked copyright infringement for non-commercial use was still a civil matter. Therefore the ISP has precisely zero responsibility to do anything since the law doesn't require it.

What the music industry is asking is for the ISP to _spend_ money so the music industry _doesn't_ have to. If these cunts want to send their copyright notices then fine. Let them go to the courts, prove that $IP downloaded $LIST to a standard that the court requires and obtain a warrant to serve the notice directly. Let them PAY the ISP for their involvement, since the ISP is nothing but a carrier. They are trying to sidestep the due process because they know their evidence is flimsy and wouldn't stand up.

Essentially what they're asking to do now is increase the costs involved in running an ISP; costs which will be amortized across all customers and result in a more expensive service for everyone.

Re:Oh really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30249810)

Slashdot already covered this last week, I think. At least over in America.

The recording industries want to shut down ports on your televisions if they have the ability to download and stream movies, preventing you from making illegal copies with another input device (like a computer or DVR).

Re:Oh really? (-1, Offtopic)

PizzaAnalogyGuy (1684610) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249876)

In pizza business it's quite common thing to be nice towards your customers. If I get a copyright notice from MPAA after serving my customer a pizza, I wont just take that pizza away. He can continue eating it until court orders me to stop providing food for the guy. But even if I have to stop providing him food, I will continue providing him mountain dew. If the ISP is also a mobile phone operator and is ordered to cut the customer, it should only affect the service in question.

The thing is, I'm a common carrier when I'm delivering pizzas as a pizza delivery guy. It is not my responsibility to handle what the customer has ordered in his pizza. Yes, I hate mushrooms in pizza. I prefer bacon. I would even suggest ordering bacon with lots of cheese over mushrooms. But if thats what the customer wants, it is not my responsibility to interfere with that. Or even know what toppings he ordered.

When MPAA gets close to our pizza business, we WILL stand up and fight in court. We WILL defend our hungry customers. We WILL defend the freedom to eat pizza and drink mountain dew while raiding the latest badass boss in World of Warcraft. They aren't going to take our freedom away!

Re:Oh really? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250514)

Ya know, every time I see one of your analogies it makes me think of a pizza with a giant turd on it. A big steaming coiler, with extra peanuts.

Maybe it's a result of watching "Drawn Together", but I'd like to think it's more due to being exposed to the constant repetition of something which wasn't very funny to begin with.

Re:Oh really? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249896)

Except that VCR's (or the VHS tapes?) now come with that built in thing that doesn't let you record off of another input from a VCR or DVD.

Also, there is nothing stopping the Movie industry from attacking DVD-Recorders and VCR's, they simply haven't. I honestly think if they wanted to go up against DVD-Recorders they would have a good enough case to cause legislation forcing VCR Recorders to lock down the types of recording they can do.

Re:Oh really? (3, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250144)

Also, there is nothing stopping the Movie industry from attacking DVD-Recorders and VCR's, they simply haven't. I honestly think if they wanted to go up against DVD-Recorders they would have a good enough case to cause legislation forcing VCR Recorders to lock down the types of recording they can do.

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios [wikipedia.org]

Re:Oh really? (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250114)

Let's transfer this to postal service. You know, it's quite possible to send illegal copies of copyrighted works by mail. So if someone is accused to receive illegal copies of copyrighted works by mail, should the postal service stop delivering mail to him?

Re:Oh really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250328)

Clearly. In fact, the postal service should employ people to open all letters and read through them to search for infringing activity. If it can't be verified to not be infringing on any copyright by independent *IAA representatives, it should be passed on to the police authorities, who should immediately arrest the criminal offender.
If they don't want to deal with the irate customers and obscene costs, they should just get out of the postal business. The American people will not tolerate people exploiting other people's hard work, nor people stifling innovation and hampering our cultural development by removing the incentive to create just to make a quick buck for themselves.

Re:Oh really? (2, Interesting)

speed of lightx2 (1375759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250692)

In Canada there is a blanket tax for all Cd-R's that goes to the record companies. If you guy a blank CD in Canada, your automatically considered to be copyright thief (at least probabilistically), or as some other people prefer to think about it, you already paid for your right to pirate.

Re:Oh really? (4, Funny)

goonerw (99408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250994)

Next stop, having DVD-Recorders and VCRs removed from the shelves of your local super store.
The funnier next step would be. Sony Vs. Sony. i.e. Sony (The Movie arm) Vs Sony (the tech arm that makes DVD recorders and provides the software to copy DVDs).

Follow up pissy letters to DVR dealers, Myth TV... (1)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249730)

...Etc in 3...2...1...

Pot calling the kettle black (4, Insightful)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249760)

The court case between the NRLA (National Right to Life Association) and film industry drew to a close yesterday after the NRLA issued an ultimatum: Take copycat violent crimes responsibilities seriously or leave the industry. 'Businesses such as film industry want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of producing violent films and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said the NRLA's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that children is able to mimic. If they don't like having to deal with copycat violent crimes then they should get out of the business.'

ps. No, NRLA doesn't exist. I made that up.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250272)

ps. No, NRLA doesn't exist. I made that up.

Don't give him [wikipedia.org] any ideas.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250614)

ps. No, NRLA doesn't exist. I made that up.

It's actually called the NRLC[ommittee].
Some (I don't know how many) of their State affiliates call themselves an Association.

Why? (5, Insightful)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249792)

Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility.

Actually, all business want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money by providing a product or service to customers, including the movie industry. But since when is it the responsibility of one business to protect the business interests of another business? Cars can be used to facilitate bank robberies, matches can be used to facilitate arson, photocopiers can be used to facilitate copyright infringement. Should car manufacturers and match manufacturers get out of their respective businesses if they aren't willing to help?

Re:Why? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250002)

A car analogy! You've made my day ... so far I've had to limp by on pizza analogies.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250024)

Corporations love the free market until they actually have to compete with one another, against their consumers, or even against themselves (like SONY, who manufactures both content and devices that can copy/store/play that content). Then the free market becomes the biggest, baddest threat out there.

Instead of playing by the free market's rules, they sissy up and go running off to the courts and the government to try and eliminate their competition via legislation and lawsuits.

The only solution is to break these companies up. If they can't compete in the free market, then they need to go away. It's as simple as that, even if it means some jobs are lost in the process.

Re:Why? (1)

ewhenn (647989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250356)

"If an ISP in a case says ‘this is what we tried to do, we tried to deal with notices and these are the systems we use. We cant deal with every one' - let's assume [the ISP] get 100 of these notices per week and tried to process 25 percent of them.

"So they come to court and say ‘this is our reasonable response'. That may be one thing," Bannon hypothesised.
v "But in circumstances where they do nothing, where they say they can't send a single notice to anybody....


I dislike the ridiculous movie / music industry groups as much as anybody but...

You didn't RTFA. The above italic is from the article. They are upset because when notification of infringement is sent they essentially send it to the circular file and do nothing at all. All they are asking for is that when the infringed party reports copyright infringement, the ISP actually investigates it In all honesty, this does seem reasonable, provided they don't flood their offices with garbage reports..

The comparisons you are making have nothing to do with the above either, in all of those cases the individual/company has purchased a product and is not providing a continuing service. You can buy a car and then never talk to the manufacturer/dealer of the car again, including if it needs repairs. An Internet connection is a continuing service relationship. You pay a company monthly (in most cases) for a connection. When it goes out, you contact your provider, and don't talk to a 3rd party shop, etc. Apples to oranges.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250576)

They are upset because when notification of infringement is sent they essentially send it to the circular file and do nothing at all.

Sorry but they did do something with the notices, they forwarded them to the Western Australian police.

http://mobile.itnews.com.au/Article.aspx?CIID=160896&type=News [itnews.com.au]

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250652)

I still have my lifetime dialup service. :) Payed a cool 500 bucks for it.

Re:Why? (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250662)

The comparisons you are making have nothing to do with the above either, in all of those cases the individual/company has purchased a product and is not providing a continuing service. You can buy a car and then never talk to the manufacturer/dealer of the car again, including if it needs repairs. An Internet connection is a continuing service relationship. You pay a company monthly (in most cases) for a connection. When it goes out, you contact your provider, and don't talk to a 3rd party shop, etc. Apples to oranges.

Ok. Many (in fact, most) manufacturers of photocopiers sell service contracts with their machines and therefore have an ongoing relationship with their customers. Should Xerox have to deal with a flood of infringement notices when their machines are used to copy sheet music?

Re:Why? (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250688)

I dislike the ridiculous movie / music industry groups as much as anybody but...

You didn't RTFA.

you must be new here.

So... paper mills (1, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249836)

Dangerous thing paper. Can lead to all sorts of problems.

 

Re:So... paper mills (1)

corcoranp (892008) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250352)

Like death threats, paper cuts, eye-gouging paper air-planes. Why doesn't the paper industry take these things seriously!!!

In Before Betamax - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30249862)

Not this shit again.

Re:In Before Betamax - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250176)

^ This.

Same old song. (2, Insightful)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249918)

The media industry has been whining about this for ages; they want others to do their job.

Re:Same old song. (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250342)

Actually, they would prefer cash, certified cheques or payment via credit cards instead of any work...

Oh look! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30249926)

kdawson has posted an Australian story. Fancy that.

Where's the ultimatum? (1)

nidarus (240160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249960)

Sounds more like whining to me.

Re:Where's the ultimatum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250154)

It seems to me that the ISP's can only make more money. If a law is passed then all ISP's will be affected, to enforce those laws they will need some investments, a very good moment to rise the prices, no matter what competition exists they all will have to do it and all will add a healthy extra to the price. On the other hand, the movie industry will loose a lot lot more. How? Just wait and see.

Same to you, buddy (5, Insightful)

cheebie (459397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249966)

How about if they start taking their responsibility seriously and let those works pass into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time, AS WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT. Give us back our culture, damnit!

Re:Same to you, buddy (2, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250118)

How about if they start taking their responsibility seriously and let those works pass into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time, AS WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT. Give us back our culture, damnit!

Although I totally agree with your statement .. can we prefix it with the Studios having to make quality product in the first place?

And a pony too!

Re:Same to you, buddy (2, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250810)

I'm not sure I buy that argument - if the studios were only churning out unwatchable rubbish, then nobody would bother pirating it and this "problem" would go away.

Re:Same to you, buddy (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250932)

Life is both boring and stressful. People will watch anything to dull the pain. But going to work to pay for the movie that lets you forget work will drive you insane; thus the paradox that people both want to watch worthless films, and don't want to pay for them.

The auto industry creates death machines! (5, Insightful)

psyque (1234612) | more than 4 years ago | (#30249996)

The auto industry should also immediately take responsibility for all the death and cost due to people running over and robbing people/businesses with cars! They profit from death and destruction!

Re:The auto industry creates death machines! (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250138)

Don't forget all those cars loaded up hard drives full of pirated material.

Cars capable of carrying hard drives must be banned or the car companies should get out of the car business if they aren't going to take copyright seriously!

Re:The auto industry creates death machines! (2, Interesting)

psyque (1234612) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250216)

Then they play it with the windows down. That's a public performance! They should demand the auto industry taxes all vehicles to offset the HUGE loss of profit.

Yeah, so? (2, Insightful)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250052)

Yeah, so? It’s not the military-entertainment-industrial complex that makes the laws, but parliaments.

They can huff and puff all they want, but that does not make it force of law in any case.

Re:Yeah, so? (5, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250248)

Yeah, so? It’s not the military-entertainment-industrial complex that makes the laws, but parliaments.

They can huff and puff all they want, but that does not make it force of law in any case.

Indeed. If they want a law, they'll have to buy it.

Re:Yeah, so? (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250888)

Yeah, so? It’s not the military-entertainment-industrial complex that makes the laws, but parliaments.

And you think that all those MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions and outright lobbying of congress will not get laws passed (ie effectively *buying* laws).

They can huff and puff all they want, but that does not make it force of law in any case.

No it' s the THROWING MONEY AT THE LAWMAKERS which eventually makes it law.

Get out of the industry? (5, Insightful)

M-RES (653754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250080)

Perhaps if the entertainment giants can't change their business models to suit the realities of the modern marketplace it is THEY who should get out of the industry!

Re:Get out of the industry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250186)

They will. I has started already. Why do you think they are fighting this much?

Re:Get out of the industry? (1)

matzahboy (1656011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250336)

Yes, they need to find a new way to make money in the Internet age. But the question here is NOT whether they should attack piracy. This court case is debating whether ISPs should be responsible for fighting piracy.

Class-Action Lawsuit anyone? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250090)

It simply amazes me the arrogance of a company that can sit back and whine about shit like this while posting record numbers (and earnings) at the box office.

Perhaps a class-action lawsuit is in order the next time I waste $15 and two hours of my life on a really shitty movie. Sound utterly stupid? Yeah, so does a lot of shit feeding lawyers these days, like this story.

Re:Class-Action Lawsuit anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250996)

I don't understand the connection between record profits and complaining about copyright infringement.

Just because you go see a movie doesn't mean your neighbor can watch it.

My local bar sells draft beer for $6 a pop. If I get 2, with tax and tip, I'm out (likely more than) $15. I choose to go to the bar anyway, so I don't complain that a beer costs too much. I definitely don't hold it against the bar that they don't let people who don't pay their tabs come back, even though the bar is making record profits.

The next time you go to a shitty movie, leave after 10 minutes and get your money back. Don't complain that you watched the whole thing.

On the other hand, I agree that a lot of lawyers say stupid things, and in the end, good lawyers embarrass them in court.

I agree with the recording industry (4, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250108)

I think ISP's SHOULD deal with infringement notices, but they should also not have to do it for free. a fair administration charge would be applied to each request, say $1000. after all the isp will effectively loose a customer as well as wear support and legal costs out of it. oh whats that, that lunch wasn't free?!?! boohoo.

Re:I agree with the recording industry (1)

xiando (770382) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250240)

I think ISP's SHOULD deal with infringement notices, but they should also not have to do it for free. a fair administration charge would be applied to each request, say $1000. after all the isp will effectively loose a customer as well as wear support and legal costs out of it. oh whats that, that lunch wasn't free?!?! boohoo. I completely agree that ISPs should be able to charge huge fees for "infringement notices", specially all that bogus DMCA spam. I have gotten quite a lot of these, specially much from the criminal enterprises ARTISTdirect and BayTSP. It does cost time and money to reply and explain to the incompetent retards that running a legal bittorrent tracker with legal content is no reason to send DMCA spam about some random file using a completely different tracker. btw, ARTISTdirect is also known for denial of service attacks agains Revision3, who also happen to use BitTorrent for 100% legal purposes.

Re:I agree with the recording industry (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250856)

Why would they bother coming after a site that seems to only indulge nutbar conspiracy theories?

Maybe Alex Jones was really onto something! *rolls eyes*

Re:I agree with the recording industry (1)

matzahboy (1656011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250348)

If they had to get $1000 per request, they would be profiting off of piracy. Many ISPs already forward the take down requests for free.

Re:I agree with the recording industry (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250694)

So? Just because someone else will wash your car for free doesn't mean I will. If you want me to do something, you're gonna have to pay me to do it.

Re:I agree with the recording industry (2, Interesting)

Trogre (513942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250778)

You mean like AV vendors profiting from virus writers and hackers?

Re:I agree with the recording industry (1)

jonsmirl (114798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250506)

I agree that the ISPs should charge for handling DCMA notices. Is there any rule that says they can't? $1000 is excessive but $100 each is not. The ISP is not the one being charged with infringement. It is clear that the content industry is trying to transfer the burden of policing and negative publicity on to an innocent third party, the ISP. The content industry should not be allowed to shift this burden for free. If they want to pursue insane business strategies they can do it on their own dime.

The world has changed and big content has to learn to live in the new world. Putting a police officer in every teenager's bedroom has tremendous costs associated with it. If big content wants to take that route they should bear the costs and not try and shift them onto a third party. Might be a whole lot cheaper to just sell the content in a form that people actually want.

Re:I agree with the recording industry (1)

LeperPuppet (1591409) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250646)

I also think ISPs should pass along infringement notices, assuming that the copyright holders can provide evidence that the ISPs customer has been infringing on their copyright. ISPs however shouldn't have to foot the bill for enforcing the copyrights of others, especially those who have a history of making poorly supported accusations of infringement.

If a copyright holder can produce actual evidence of the transfer of a complete film/TV episode/whatever by an ISPs customer, then the ISP should forward the notice and charge the copyrights holder for any processing costs incurred. If the copyright holder eventually takes the customer to court, they can try to recoup this cost from them. This way if they're accusing actual infringers, they'll recoup their outlay, while if they're accusing network printers, they won't.

If the copyright holders won't do a thorough and respectable job of investigating potential infringements, why should they expect others to do so for free on their behalf?

Re:I agree with the recording industry (4, Insightful)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250942)

You sir are a clueless monkey, and a retard.

"Infringement Notices" are just an email, there is LITERALLY ZERO evidence that it is what it claims to be, or that it was sent by the parties it claims to have been sent by.

Therefore I could (trivially easily) fake an email to your ISP, claiming hundreds of infringements, and get your intertubes destroyed. EASILY. and EVERY TIME YOU MOVE ISPs, I could rain down upon you a never ending trail of destruction.

Wityh "infringement notices" as they stand today there is literally ZERO verification, ZERO evidence. You are expected to take SIGNIFICANT ACTION based on RUMOR AND HERESAY. This Is Effectively PRESUMPTION OF GUILT, WITH NEITHER JUDGE NOR JURY NOR RECORSE TO A COURT OF LAW.

Postal service (1)

xiando (770382) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250134)

Letters and packages can contain all sorts of illicit material, I hope the movie industry doesn't manage to sue and buy judges into making them have to open every letter and every package just to make sure that there is no sign of "pirated" material inside. I never bought a single DVD, but I probably would have if the movie industry had not declared that it is somehow criminal to play legally bought DVDs on my GNU/Linux entertainment system back in the day. This joke of a trial has obviously not changed my opinion regarding buying DVDs.

Next targets (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250182)

"They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes"

So next will come shops that sell computers, and photo/video cameras ? Keep reasoning that way and dont stop till all lives in caves (or worse, after all, human brain can be used for copyright infringement purposes after all).

Of all disaster movies, alien/monster attacks, still have to see one where the copyright industry attacks and successfully destroy mankind, at least have more chances to happen than the arguments of most blockbuster disaster movies.

Douchebag of a summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250192)

So the case closed. Who won and how? "Ultimatum"? What's the "else" part that makes it an ultimatum?

ISP's to FILM INDUSTRY (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250232)

ISP's to FILM INDUSTRY: FUCK OFF! We build the cars, we don't drive them. Its not our job to police the roads. Go find a cop. Its not our business model that is failing. We aren't stealing anything from you, and we are tired of you wasting our time. If your industry is dying, then go and die already, and be done with it. If you don't stop bugging us, we will encourage your untimely demise, just to be rid of you quicker! Once again, and very politely, FUCK OFF!

Will someone please call these jackasses' bluff? (3, Insightful)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250274)

Film studios need the internet. The internet doesn't need film studios.

Post Office (3, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250278)

Is the post office responsible if I mail a copied DVD to someone?

Q.E.D.

Re:Post Office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250476)

Damn I wish I still had some mod points. This argument ftw.

Re:Post Office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250800)

Your argument is:

The internet and the postal system are both data transportation mechanisms, therefore any arguments that apply to the internet ought to apply to the post office. The fact that these arguments aren't applied to the post office is taken as evidence that they ought not be applied to the internet.

Have I captured the essence of it correctly?

This argument neglects to consider the possibility that their criticism of the ISPs may hinge on the details in which the post office is not like the internet. If that were the case, your argument would fail to hold.

So for one thing, I'm not aware of any well known piracy by mail services, but I'm aware of (and use) a number of indexes of torrents for pirated material. This is in fact, a large portion of what I download each month. In fact, if I were prevented from accessing pirated content, I would probably downgrade to a less expensive connection.

Let's not delude ourselves with intellectually dishonest arguments.

Re:Post Office (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251022)

Let's not delude ourselves with intellectually dishonest arguments.

Fair Call, that's something the MUSIC/MOVIE industry already does well enough without us joining in.

This whole issue is a cop-out. The ISPs are merely low-hanging-fruit aka scapegoats.

If you have evidence that a law has been broken, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with that which DO NOT involve ISPs. If you do NOT have evidence ..... then why are you badgering ISPs to be JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER?

Re:Post Office (2, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251050)

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it points out how this kind of rule is somewhat absurd. If the ISPs were directing customers to the illegal content, the argument would make perfect sense. But when acting as a simple data carrier, the argument doesn't hold water. You can't sue the post office. You can't sue AT&T because you called a scam company and told them your credit card. You can't sue Comcast because ABC news aired a report that upset you.

Now, it's illegal to use the post office for various crimes (thus postal fraud), and we could get laws like that. But asking the post office to inspect every letter/package sent to make sure it doesn't contain something illegal would be rejected outright. It's somewhat easier for ISPs since they don't need to physically open boxes/letters, but it is still a rather ridiculous request.

Your torrent site example is interesting, but those are basically catalogs. In a post office world, you sent a letter to the site asking for a catalog, and the post office sent it to you. The ISP is still a dumb pipe. Pretend that Colombia House used to sell pirated content. It's the same thing. Colombia house can get in trouble for doing it, and for using the post office to transport stolen goods, but the USPS (or UPS/FedEx if you prefer) isn't liable.

The best argument I could see against the ISPs is that they often advertise that their high speed connections will make online video better. If you assume most online video is stolen, they are technically advertising for it, but that's a stretch. There is tons of free video on YouTube that isn't stolen (cat clips, etc.), and free to view services (Hulu, etc.) that this doesn't hold water.

I always thought it was odd that the big ISPs advertised how their service was great for downloading music/MP3s years after the file sharing lawsuits started. "You can download MP3s 200x faster than dial-up! (but downloading 200x as many legal MP3s will cost you 200x as much)".

Now the argument that you would change your connection if you didn't download pirated content may hold true for you, but for many people it wouldn't. My parents don't download illegal stuff, but they like their high speed connection. As legal options increase (again Hulu, Amazon's service, iTunes, etc.) people have good reasons to want to keep high speed connections. Even for downloading family videos sent by other relatives/etc.

The thing that I find fun about all this is that ISPs are a dumb pipe. They need to be regulated like a dumb pipe, and priced like a dumb pipe. But they are trying so hard to not be a dumb pipe and pretend that they are better than everyone else because they have stupid service "X". Yet as soon as a lawsuit like this comes up, they go back to "You can't sue us, we're a dumb pipe". i would love it if these kind of lawsuits forced them to pick a side.

How is this a logical argument? (1)

firesyde424 (1127527) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250280)

"'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business."

Does this mean that Dell and HP should get out of the computer manufacturing business because they provide a device that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes? You might as well sue the oil companies because they provide the gasoline that powers the automobiles used in vehicular homicide.

Why am I suddenly curious about the annual revenue of iiNet? Something tells me that iiNet probably can't afford a protracted legal battle in the way that say... Dell or AT&T could.

The MAFIAA may change names and countries, but the bullshit is still the same.

Typical of Movie Industry Corporates (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250282)

These corporates which run the big movie studios have no creative cells between any of them. They've run out of ideas and are now churning out old remakes, as well as copying ideas from more talented directors and producers out there (How many disaster/war/tween movies do we want anyway?!?).
Instead of working on ideas and business models to facilitate new technology and new media, they continually insist on suing customers, vaguely related industries (The earlier VCR comment is valid, just replace with Blueray)

hopeless (2, Interesting)

SeanFlotre (1688358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250298)

that's why the industry is being so hardline about this stuff, they know it's hopeless.

STFU studios and GBTW (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250340)

Actually, it carries no responsibility because ISP's are common carriers. The only thing anyone is responsible for here is studios. They need to STFU and get back to work making films. The moment these idiots became more law firm than film studio they ceased to provide anything useful to society.

Actually, I think the ISPs should fully agree (3, Interesting)

cheros (223479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250350)

We've known for quite some time that exposure actually CREATES sales, not reduces it. As it so happens, I just came back from a party where one discussion was "I got this copy of xyz, and I liked it so much I went and bought the album" - which happened to be an answer to someone who did buy a whole book series of an author after reading a library book.

If I were leading some kind of ISP club I'd call all of them and ensure that indeed NOBODY carries that traffic anymore - absolutely nobody. I'd give it 2 months before the media industry realises just how deep they've cut their own flesh. At that point discussions will become a lot more sensible. There is really no better way to nuke their business that indeed following what they want to do and let them feel the resulting pain. Because it will prove just how Pyrrhic that victory is.

So, if you hang together you will either end up with a more reasonable discussion, or they'll go bankrupt - which also not a bad thing IMHO, that's merely another bubble where bursting was long overdue.

I don't think piracy is good, but there are pirates and home users - the two are different. One type will become your client if you treat them well, the other type does things in volume and belongs in jail (and has been proven to go out of business if you lower margins).

If you stick your *customers* in jail for being interested in your product the results will be pretty obvious. In the US there already a whole generation growing up knowing people of their own age whose life has been destroyed by the RIAA. Do you really think they will EVER buy another record in their life?

I give it two months, maybe three.

Re:Actually, I think the ISPs should fully agree (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250876)

I totally agree. I buy tons of dvds (but only ones I know are worth buying) and I've bought many movies / season of tv shows because of a friend of mine who pirates. If I'd never seen them for free at his place, I'd never have bought them.

And the same advice goes for you (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250354)

The movie studios need to put up with the piracy or leave the industry. People like to get free stuff. They can get free stuff. But it seems it's possible to make money even when this happens. Perhaps you should try that. Or not. Someone else will work out a way.

The plain truth of the matter is that it isn't the ISP's problem. The problem belongs to the person who is harmed. Maybe it shouldn't but the world simply isn't fair like that.

Obligatory car comparison (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250442)

'Businesses such as ISPs want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of Internet service facilities and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer. 'They provide a facility that is able to be used for copyright infringement purposes. If they don't like having to deal with copyright notices then they should get out of the business.'

Could read like this:

'Businesses such as car manufacturers want to enjoy the benefit of being able to make money out of the provision of automobiles and they enjoy that benefit. But it carries with it a responsibility,' said Tony Bannon SC, the film industry's lawyer. 'They provide a product that is able to be used for vehicular homicide. If they don't like having to deal with accessory to murder charges they should get out of the business.'

Stop paying them (1)

Sean (422) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250462)

Stop giving them your money. If you live in Australia send these guys emails and tell them you won't purchase movies anymore. Tell them you will also discourage your friends and family from doing so. The vast majority of what they make is a complete waste of your time anyway.

I just saw a movie about .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250472)

Because in that movie, I saw someone destroy people and be heartless, I choose to mimicked it.

Should the AU Film Studios deal with the consequences of my actions and be responsible or get out of the business.

Luddites in Oz (1)

hardburlyboogerman (161244) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250544)

And I thought the rightwingnuts of the GOP were wacked out.

"The tighter you grasp,the more slips through your fingers."

Re:Luddites in Oz (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250588)

I just love the retards who use Star Wars as a lifestyle. Good job, Skippy.

I hope they butt fuck you in prison and give you the AIDS.

Easy to Answer this Question (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250570)

The side that owns the most politicians usually wins, unless public opinion is mobilized.
Nobody really gives a damn for people who want to unlawfully copy the work of others, so the outcome looks obvious.

Isn't it about time for "common carrier" status? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250582)

ISPs are not far off from phone companies in the sense that they just carry traffic. While it's true that there are presently games being played with port blocking, applications blocking and bandwidth limiting, if given the option of becoming a common carrier makes them immune to the pressures of the copyright industry, then that's the way it should be. They would also likely stop playing games with the port blocking and all that mess as well.

If you don't like this... (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250680)

... then cut off the stream that lets these studios think they can dictate to ISPs.

In other words:

Stop buying their crap, and encourage others to do the same.

Now.

Those brave souls protecting film copyright...... (1)

taksraven (1224462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250808)

What has always annoyed me about this case has been the fact that iinet has been at the rough end of it, despite the fact that it has only been the third biggest ISP in Australia. Telstra and Optus, (The two biggest ISP's in Australia and the two that really have the funds to mount a legal defence against this sort of case) the real targets of this legal action, have been sitting at the sidelines rubbing their hands together with glee probably hoping that this legal action will topple iinet and give them more customers. Those prosecuting iinet would have seen this as a "cost-effective test case", in other words, they are picking on those who do not have the best ability to pay to defend themselves in court. I hope that somehow iinet wins this case, but even if they do, with mininova going bye-byes yesterday, the writing might be on the wall for bittorrent and the like.

Thats a plea of a dying (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250990)

mega industry and I welcome it. I always wondered why they never went after the computer, mobile device and networking equipment manufacturers. After all they are the first in line before the network line but they insists on badgering the ISP's.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?