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!

Australian ISP Wins Case Against Movie Studios

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-studios? dept.

Australia 155

trawg writes "The Australian High Court has just dismissed an appeal by Australian and American media companies against ISP iiNet, in what will hopefully be the final step in an ongoing copyright lawsuit drama. The Court noted that 'iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright.' Ultimately, the court has held that iiNet's inactivity to act on infringement notices didn't imply any sort of authorization of that infringement by their customers. Good news for Australians as a clear line has been drawn that will help ensure ISPs don't have to bear the cost of policing their customers."

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

Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741389)

Good to see this issue finally put the bed.

Re:Great news (5, Informative)

kava_kicks (727490) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741413)

As an Australian, this is a big relief. iiNet are actually a pretty good ISP too: great network, good service, reasonable prices.

Re:Great news (1)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741557)

So everyone tells me, but my experience of iiNet after they borged Netspace was the complete opposite. Network went to crap when I was moved from an Optus DSLAM to a Telstra one, the customer service stuffed up, and the price increased.

Re:Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741983)

I'm hoping that iiNet's recent purchase of Internode doesn't lead to a similar downgrade in what has in my experience been a stellar ISP.

Re:Great news (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742019)

I am a long time Internode customer (last three houses and I use Internode for my parents ISP as well) and I can say that at my current residence of two and a bit years, I have always been on a Telstra DSLAM at the exchange, but just this month, Internode upgraded to their own DSLAMs at the exchange, and I got a similar email informing me that my parents account will also be moved to their own infrastructure in the near future - so it seems it anything, the service is being improved with some extra cash that the purchase has injected.

There doesn't seem to be any other negative changes that I have noticed - the sales and support phone lines are still local, they are still amazingly communicative in regards to changes and progress on jobs - so it is all smooth sailing in my books.

Re:Great news (3, Interesting)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742211)

I wouldn't have stuck with Netspace for 8 years if they weren't fantastic. It was a terrible shame to see them get so badly stuffed up.

On leaving them, they sent me a survey to fill out to tell them why I'd left, the link for which didn't work, so I emailed the customer service people back, cc'ing Michael Malone, explaining how as a long term customer of Netspace that it was with regret I was leaving after 8 years as a customer, but in 4 paragraphs exactly how they drove me away.

The next morning, I got a phone call from a senior customer service person at iiNet, who apologised for everything that happened and gave me an undertaking that iiNet were going to endeavour to make sure what had happened to me didn't happen with their future acquisitions. Whilst it was too late for me as I'd already churned away, I hope that they stuck to their word.

Re:Great news (5, Informative)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741717)

Also, very glad to see that the High court awarded costs in iiNet's favour - translation, the MAFIAA have to pay all of iiNet's lawyers bill!!!

Re:Great news (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741993)

Also, very glad to see that the High court awarded costs in iiNet's favour - translation, the MAFIAA have to pay all of iiNet's lawyers bill

It is the default in Australia that a losing party will be ordered to pay the winning party's inter-party costs. It helps to inhibit frivolous litigation.

Re:Great news (1)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742607)

Whilst IANAL, I'm pretty sure that it's not a default position, but it is definitely an option that can be applied for. Will check with a lawyer friend...

Re:Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742901)

Whilst IANAL, I'm pretty sure ...

Sure enough to contradict someone who is.

Re:Great news (1)

hemo_jr (1122113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742131)

Good sense prevailed.

Re:Great news (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741723)

Good. The copyright cartels are like negligent parents: they think all the rest of society should bear their responsibility for them.

Can't be bothered to be involved in your kids' life and pay attention to what they watch and what games they play? No problem! Just censor everything! Can't be bothered to do your own discovery and catch your own filesharers? No problem! Just offload the task to the ISPs without compensating them!

Tired, tired, TIRED of this bullshit. About damned time a court had some sense. Guess the MAFIAA didn't bribe^H donate to the right politicians this time?

Re:Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742851)

Your analogy would be even better if negligent parents were also protecting millions of dollars in revenue via their actions

Re:Great news (4, Interesting)

skine (1524819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742943)

Here's the problem for me personally:

Where I currently live (in the US), I have three options for internet:

1) Dial-up.
2) Satellite.
3) Time Warner.

Since I require use of the internet for more than email, 1) is out.

Since I can't afford $90/month, 2) is out.

But with 3), the ISP is owned by the copyright holders. That is, the same company that owns New Line, Time Magazine, HBO, TBS, The CW, Warner Bros, Cartoon Network, CNN, DC Comics, Castle Rock Entertainment, and others.

Re:Great news (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741817)

Good to see this issue finally put the bed.

Who knows if it's "put to bed"? Do you really believe the robber barons are going to just say "Oh well, we lost fair and square, let's move on"? They have quite a bit more money than sense, so they're just moving to a different front.

Me, I'm waiting for the inevitable Copyright Wars, in which I plan to fight for the Resistance. Check that: have been fighting for the Resistance.

Re:Great news (4, Informative)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742045)

"Oh well, we lost fair and square, let's move on"

They didn't, the lost their original case, their appeal was denied and they took it to the High Court of Australia - pretty much the equivalent of SCOTUS in the US. There really isn't anywhere further for them to take this case.

Sure, they might try down a parallel path with a similar objective, but a wonderful side effect of taking it to the High Court is that now pretty much any similar path they try will still be in the shadow of this ruling - making it greatly more difficult for them to introduce anything remotely similar.

Re:Great news (5, Insightful)

pt73 (2506856) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742389)

While I'm sure studios don't mind that much. They are playing a bigger game than just this case. The certainty means that any lobbying for change of law cannot be stifled by claims that the current law is adequate (for what they want). So whereas law makers could have said there was no need to change the law to achieve what the studios want, the certainty of the High Court ruling shows that the current law does not allow them to easily pursue the ISP. So expect pressure on the federal government for a law change.

Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (5, Funny)

lostsoulz (1631651) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741401)

C'mon, surely this can't be true? Stuff like this *never* happens. This demonstrates a clear failure of the studio's lawyering and lobbying. They need to find more lawyers immediately and seriously up their game. If this sort of common sense is allowed to take hold, who knows what may happen.

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741569)

I'm amazed so few have stood up to their ass-rat behaviour. The studios have been bribing politicians so much they seem to think they actually run the country in many places. It may be that many people at this point *do* think they are entitled to dictate what ISPs do.

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741853)

Well, now they just switch to your lovely politicians to enable them to dictate what ISPs do.

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741687)

C'mon, surely this can't be true? Stuff like this *never* happens.

Well it's Australia not some backwater podunk country like the United States. Everything on that slab of rock is trying to kill you, so a few lawyers don't really scare anyone.

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741911)

Actually, as an Aussie who's been twice on his "deathbed" (admittedly only once from our huge array of deadly beasts, especially the drop-bears), I *still* have a fear of lawyers. I'm brave, not stupid :-)

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (5, Insightful)

sjwt (161428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741727)

I am not sure how 'lobbying' works where you come from, but over here when you 'lobby' a judge, we call that 'bribing'

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (2)

deniable (76198) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742023)

"Attempting to pervert the course of justice" is the technical term.

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742183)

"Attempting to pervert the course of justice" is the technical term.

"Niggers" is the more technically correct epithet.

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (1)

sjwt (161428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742243)

Phiffle, its only "Attempting" if you get caught!

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742263)

Phiffle, its only "Attempting" if you get caught!

On the contrary, getting caught is entirely irrelevant to the question. What determines whether it's "attempting" or not, is whether the bribe is accepted.

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (4, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742271)

The Australian High Court is very different to the US Supreme Court.

High Court judges are more like the high priests of Australian judiciary. Their professionalism and ego are very much bound to that appointment. Strict accurate literal interpretation of the law is what they believe in and what they adhere to. This often trips up many politicians and of course corporations. None of this sounds like, looks like, could possibly be, politically aligned decisions. Even when politicians have made their way there, upon appointment they have demonstrated strict professionalism.

Unhappy with their ruling. Rewrite the law so that it fits in with constitution or if that is not possible, attempt to force a referendum to get the constitution changed, so that the law you wants fits in with that. Yeah good luck with that.

More simple access to referendums (where the whole electorate) votes on a single issue, make stacking the high court kind of mute, they could say no, it gets put in a referendum and the majority of the public say yes, then it's yes. especially on key issues.

Re:Wait, what?! The court found in iiNet's favour? (2)

lostsoulz (1631651) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742829)

Bribing is such a dirty word. It sounds low, base and frankly illegal. We can't have that. Instead, you lobby the lawmakers until you have legislation that leaves the judiciary with no option but to find in the studio's favour. The alternative is unconscionable - e.g. Disney DVDs & BDs drop in price, consumers have increased choice, customer service improves and margins fall. Think of the children for Dawkin's sake!

Short lived (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741433)

The Australian lapdog^H^H^H^H^H^Hgovernment has already indicated a willingness to change the law, in the case of the judges not being intimidated by the MAFIAA.

Re:Short lived (3, Interesting)

Cinnaman (954100) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741531)

Western governments will not let their populations have a free and open internet without a fight.

Re:Short lived (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741629)

No governments will let their populations have a free and open internet without a fight.

FTFY

Re:Short lived (1)

sd4f (1891894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741665)

Well the aussie gumberment did sign ACTA, what's most surprising is, there have been large protests in europe over ACTA, yet, it breezed through here in skipville pretty much without a mention in the media (mind you, it was agreed to before the protests in europe)

Re:Short lived (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741699)

I hate to use the word conspiracy, but this shit was covered up so hard. We need to organize protests before they sign it in to law.

Re:Short lived (0)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741951)

Well the reason for that is that the average aussie doesn't know or care about politics, but mandatory voting exists here. So, every election they get out their crayons to draw penises on the ballot, or flip a coin to decide who to vote for.

There are perhaps 1-2% who care enough to decide properly, hence most aussie elections go down to the wire 49-50 between labor and liberal.

I say that as someone who lives here :D

Re:Short lived (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742095)

Well the reason for that is that the average aussie doesn't know or care about politics, but mandatory voting exists here. So, every election they get out their crayons to draw penises on the ballot, or flip a coin to decide who to vote for.

Informality rates are around 5% [aec.gov.au] , that includes both ballots spoilt by accident and those deliberately spoil. Average?!

There are perhaps 1-2% who care enough to decide properly ...

That figure should be 75-80%. See, I can pull bogus figures out of my arse too!

... hence most aussie elections go down to the wire 49-50 between labor and liberal.

Non sequitur.

I say that as someone who lives here :D

Clearly residency does not equate with being well informed. Lemme guess ... your name is not Anthony Green?

Re:Short lived (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742471)

Technicality, but since you are banging on about being well informed, his name is actually Antony Green. :-)

Re:Short lived (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742355)

There are perhaps 1-2% who care enough to decide properly, hence most aussie elections go down to the wire 49-50 between labor and liberal.

You're obviously not a Queenslander - Labor had their asses handed to them on a silver platter just a few weeks ago in a 87-7pc split (the rest were independents). I guess the people had enough of Anna Bligh [abc.net.au] selling off government assets, sending politicians and their guests to football games at taxpayer expense [abc.net.au] , and spending $300,000 a day on election advertising [couriermail.com.au] (at least that was at party expense). And they're still in the news accused of shredding files on their way out [theaustralian.com.au] no less.

Re:Short lived (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742391)

It always goes down 49-50 huh? You sir are an example of your average Australian, though for average Australians they would probably say that your actually below average.

Re:Short lived (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742761)

And you are a perfect example of an average American. Only an American can think an election is always between two parties.

Re:Short lived (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742695)

For the humor impaired: that was intended to be funny, not scientifically accurate.

The trouble is... (5, Informative)

countach (534280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741437)

The trouble is, when the courts smack down the media companies, the government steps in with new legislation, since they are in the back pocket of the media companies. Stephen Conroy, Labor's communication minister has already signalled that when iiNet loses, he's going to do just that.

Re:The trouble is... (4, Insightful)

johnjones (14274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741525)

let your MP know on this single issue you will vote against them...
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/find-your-local-mp.htm [abc.net.au]

wonder how many people actually will... worth twittering/emailing/commenting on the MP in question

regards

John Jones

Re:The trouble is... (3, Informative)

powerspike (729889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741733)

Your Forgetting that the standing government is going to lose the next election, hell they might not even get to the end of their term. When a government is in this position they'll pass a lot of legislation that will be bad, look at previous governments in this country that knew they where going to lose - like nsw labour selling off the power companies etc...

Re:The trouble is... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741805)

Just be fair about it. Artists should be paid for their work, even if they use the *IAA's like loan sharks. Tell your legislator of choice to focus legislation on allowing the artists to ask distributors that they don't have a deal with for a *reasonable* payment per download (ie: about what an artist actually gets in their pocket per iTunes download), and also limit it to only those distribution sites that are making money (advertising, donations, subscriptions, etc.). Then let them go after the distributors that don't pay up. The ones that aren't making any money should be treated as free marketing for the artist.

Re:The trouble is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741561)

The trouble is, when the courts smack down the media companies, the government steps in with new legislation, since they are in the back pocket of the media companies. Stephen Conroy, Labor's communication minister has already signalled that when iiNet loses, he's going to do just that.

But iiNet Won!

Re:The trouble is... (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741643)

we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:The trouble is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741635)

I have had nothing but positive experiences with them, sounds like you were just unlucky.

Re:The trouble is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741689)

Luckily for us Labor is well on their way to lose the next election. We'll see if Cuntroy can get this legislation passed before then, hopefully not.

Re:The trouble is... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741749)

Implying the liberals aren't just as bad as labor for giving the copyright industry a massive fellatio whenever they want. Howards government started the acta talks, and the current labor signed it. This is not a switch government to fix issue situation.

Re:The trouble is... (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742073)

I can't see Labour losing the next election or Liberals winning it as the Lib party leader is a mushroom growing in a cow pat. Now if Malcom Turnbull leads the party, then there may be a chance.

Re:The trouble is... (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742313)

I think you're giving Tony Abbot far too much credit, surely he's the cow pat.

Re:The trouble is... (1)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742401)

You just offended cow pats everywhere.

Re:The trouble is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741903)

It won't get through the senate. Neither the greens nor the opposition will support it. We have laughed at Conroy's internet filter, we will laugh at his copyright leglislation.

Re:The trouble is... (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742221)

If you dont think the opposition is going to support this, you probably have rocks in your head.

The opposition is just as pro-big-media as the government is.

Here's hoping (1)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741455)

I hope "no direct technical power" means what I think it means: that the court sees that there's no reasonable technical to way to police BitTorrent.

Re:Here's hoping (4, Informative)

TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742047)

There is a reasonable technical way to police bit torrent. (watch torrent, determine torrents contents is your intellectual property, get list of IP addresses from the swarm, match those to users via ISP) But now the studios have to subpoena the ISPs with enough details to satisfy the ISPs legal departments then sue or prosecute the end users. The studio wanted the system where they got to shortcut the legal system at the expense of the ISP to punish the end user.

Basically the court said "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly. If it ain't worth doing, stop doing it."

Finally (5, Interesting)

philmarcracken (1412453) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741465)

I'm gladdened that the courts saw the logical fallacy of allowing one corporation legal rights to force another corporation to lose profits through direct cost or degradation of service based on a failure to adapt to market changes.

While i agree there is value being lost through piracy it just seems the courts were the easier path to take instead of adaptation and new delivery methods. That might require some planning and work after all.
I'm in 100% agreement with Gabe Newell from Valve that piracy is largely a service problem.

But since these fellows at the RIAA and the MPAA seem hell bent on using the copyright laws like a club to beat the ISPs and potential customers over the head with in order to get their way, will anything change?

Re:Finally (1)

sd4f (1891894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741683)

But despite piracy being a service problem, i still get quite frustrated with the DRM of steam (especially with australian internet connections), the only company to do it right is GOG, gaben shouldn't get much credit for it at all, he just talked the talk without walking the walk.

Re:Finally (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741715)

No, things aren't going to change, unless and until people stop patronizing the rat bastards who fund MPAA/RIAA and their ilk.

If we, the human population of the world, just stopped buying their shit tomorrow, within the year, MPAA/RIAA would be pretty much irrelevant. Let them spend their remaining billions buying politicians. If we just stop doing business with them, there will be no more billions with which to buy newly elected politicians. It's simple, really.

Ditto Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and all the others with huge patent portfolios, though they are less vulnerable to direct consumer pressure than the MAFIAA's of the world.

iiNet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741497)

Come and see why we are the new number 2 in Australian broadband.

good now let them know... (2)

johnjones (14274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741501)

great now 2 things...

let them know by switching to an ISP who won't filtering the internet is wrong

http://www.iinet.net.au/ [iinet.net.au]

secondly let your MP know filtering is not a good plan... a list of websites and twitter can be found :

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/find-your-local-mp.htm [hhttp]

regards

John Jones

Re:good now let them know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741589)

I really wish that I thought that would make a difference. Wikileaks showed us just how much our government is in the USAs pocket. We are practically their Cuba. Yet outside of the abc we never hear anything about it.

What we need is someone who can't be ignored by the media to come out in favor of our cause, like Kevin Rudd or an American boy band. Otherwise the pollies will never worry and just keep taking their American copyright industry bribes.

Re:good now let them know... (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742755)

Yet outside of the abc we never hear anything about it.

Yeah, which is the funny part considering that the ABC is government funded.

I knot that we are the "upside down" place and all stand on our heads, but this aspect always makes me laugh. The only fully government funded station (SBS is only partially funded by the government) and it is the only one that really calls bullshit when needed.

Actual Judgement and Summary (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741509)

Here's the Judgement Summary: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hcasum16_2012_04_20_iiNet.pdf
Here's the full Judgement: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html

In the full judgement, the Justices systematically (and unanimously!) take apart the assertion that iiNet had "authorised" infringement just because they refused to kowtow to demands that they police their users for the copyright lobby. They point out that it's not appropriate (or legal) for an ISP to monitor or police their users' private traffic at the demand of another private entity.

Further, they held that the notices of infringement (aka shakedown letters that most ISPs meekly pass along) "did not provide iiNet with a reasonable basis for sending warning notices to individual customers containing threats to suspend or terminate those customers' accounts".

And at the very end, after the Justices explicitly provide some useful closing of loopholes by carefully passing over the legislation and common law cited by the copyright lobby... they order said lobby to pay all iiNet's costs.

Glorious.

Re:Actual Judgement and Summary (3, Interesting)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741711)

So, iiNet didn't just win, they smacked down just about all of plaintiff's claims, and made them pay all of the defendant's costs?

That's a big win.

Re:Actual Judgement and Summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741787)

Until you realize that it's just poking a bear.

A bear with deep pockets, and the will to get the government they want.

Re:Actual Judgement and Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742087)

Unlike the USA, bribery is highly illegal and is regularly prosecuted in Australia. Plus almost all politicans do not give a shit about arts, they only care about mining companies..... which are a shitload bigger

Re:Actual Judgement and Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742161)

Expect some mergers with mining companies then.

21st Century Tungsten.

Re:Actual Judgement and Summary (1)

quenda (644621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742423)

Expect some mergers with mining companies then.

21st Century Tungsten.

You joke, but that sort of thing does happen in Australia.
e.g. Western Minerals bought by a adultshop.com (sex toys, porn) to get a stock exchange listing.

Re:Actual Judgement and Summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742493)

What makes this victory even sweeter is that the AFACT deliberately went after iinet (a relatively small ISP) hoping to win by attirtion, which wouldn't be possible if they had gone after Telstra / Optus.

Failed on all counts.

Re:Actual Judgement and Summary (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742799)

deliberately went after iinet (a relatively small ISP)

They might have been smaller at the time, but there really aren't a "small" ISP. You also know that they recently knocked Optus off its perch to get the number 2 position right? The difference is that both Telstra and Optus are much much bigger companies (they both deal with landlines seriously and are mobile phone providers) while iiNet only deals with internet.

All that isn't to say that I disagree with the sentiment in your post - the fact that they calculated a player major enough to be seen as important, but considerably smaller than the other two - only shows how insidious they are and I am absolutely elated that they came through on the final appeal chance that the studios had.

encryption_inside! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741559)

encrypt everything, yes?

Re:encryption_inside! (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741597)

encrypt everything, yes?

Nofbyhgryl!

Re:encryption_inside! (1)

tdelaney (458893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741895)

Ah - PHB encryption [dilbert.com] !

Re:encryption_inside! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742153)

The problem is that, in the US anyway, a pamphlet was published by the FBI that defined persons that are overly concerned about privacy as likely terrorists. So, encrypting your communications, paying cash for your purchases rather than using nicely trackable credit or debit cards (even for as small a purchase as a cup of coffee) or trying to hide your laptop screen from others view, makes you suspect of being a terrorist.

At the same time, people are also told that they must do everything they can to protect their information from identity thieves. This contradiction creates a situation where anyone one does try to protect themselves from identity thieves also becomes a suspected terrorist. So the US government will force you to open your files anyway.

It's a wonderful circular argument or perhaps spiraling argument that leads to the elimination of the concept of personal privacy.

Re:encryption_inside! (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742801)

That or the government is the terrorist.

How will this play out now? (5, Informative)

Yonan (883124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741637)

The two main courses now of action seem to be: the media companies start offering media in a reasonable format in a reasonable timeframe at a reasonable price, or they lobby government and pursue backroom deals. The first is supported by many and has been proven to work fairly well with PC games by Valve with Steam, and iiNet has said it would be happy to help with this. The second however is much more in character, despite having been proven fairly well to not work.

Re:How will this play out now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741661)

The second obviously. We signed acta, so this is going to happen anyways.

Less likely to see digital distribution in AU now? (1)

Oblong_Cheese (1002842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741863)

Not that we aren't already shafted by American media conglomerates, but who wants to place bets on this decision reducing even further the desire for said media companies to deploy legal online streaming options in this country? I agree 100% with this decision, don't get me wrong there - I just think that as a result, these American media conglomerates are going to be even more timid about distributing their products in .AU

Re:Less likely to see digital distribution in AU n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741957)

i thought their complaint was that their products were already being distributed in AU without their involvement. i'm not sure what they think they'd achieve by not distributing their products here -- which isn't to say that i think it's unlikely that that would be their reaction.

Re:Less likely to see digital distribution in AU n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741975)

I just think that as a result, these American media conglomerates are going to be even more timid about distributing their products in .AU

I doubt it. They will distribute wherever they can get sales.

Re:Less likely to see digital distribution in AU n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742417)

In other words, buisness as usual, where they bring almost nothing over here and most of it is a year behind anyway.

All aussies (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741887)

And a loud roar came forth across all the land, in a voice strangely reminiscent of one Darryl Kerrigan:

Hey. Bad luck. [pause] Ya dickhead. Suffer in your jocks!

Re:All aussies (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742783)

Not sure why this was modded down. Probably by someone not familiar with the Aussie movie it came from. It is a quote made because of a victory in the High Court, so kinda relevant here.

Can someone mod this up?

ISPs are like phone companies (3, Interesting)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741955)

Is the phone company to blame if someone plays a song over the phone and someone records it on the other end?

Re:ISPs are like phone companies (1)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742083)

If the phone companies see that people want to do this and deliberately adjust their business plan to accomodate, for example by increasing the frequency bandwidth to match music quality and providing phones into which you can plug your iPod, then yes, they will fall under some law regarding profiting or aiding.

It comes down to proportion, which is why MegaUpload have legal problems and Google don't. However to my mind internet access is so crucial to modern life that it's impossible to separate the legal/illegal uses like this.

A Sensible Decision (1)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39741967)

While I can see it from the point of view of copyright holders, that ISPs derive a lot of their business from infringers (probably the majority of quota in Australia), this attack was underhand.

1. They deliberately focused on a smaller ISP with less resources to defend itself.

2. They encouraged local networks to join the group to cover what it was - a test case in a smaller country by much larger conglomerates.

Maybe this is just good poltiical sense, but the heart of the matter is that internet access is a fundamental part of modern society and allowing business interests, legitimately hurt thought they may be, to get their fingers on the control button is unhealthy for political and informational freedom.

Re:A Sensible Decision (1)

Billlagr (931034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742377)

poltiical sense

I see what you did there!

The judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741973)

The full judgment can be found here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/H

Re:The judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39741985)

Sorry, truncated for some reason: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html

consider what America has to export (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742209)

They used to export oil but now they won't produce enough for local use so they import it.

They used to export manufactured goods but it became cheaper to manufacture goods abroad and import them.

About the only thing left that they have to export is intellectual property, either in the form of technology or entertainment but in order to maintain the profits from such exports those properties must be tightly controlled. That's why the remnants of American industry, primarily the entertainment industry pushes for other countries to sign onto agreements like ACTA.

What they don't realize is that the harder they try to control the flow of information harder it will be to control. People will find new methods, new ways to exchange information. It was said that the IP network was created to be robust and to work around damage. Censorship and overly tight controls are just another form of damage and the net will work around them.

Don't be overjoyed yet... (4, Informative)

kocsonya (141716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742233)

Yes, iiNet won and the studios lost. Now here's the reaction from the studos' media representative (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-20/iinet-wins-download-case/3962442):

----
AFACT [*] managing director Neil Gane said the group would lobby for changes to copyright laws following the decision.

"Now that we have taken this issue to the highest court in the land, it is time for government to act," Mr Gane said.

"The Government has always maintained that content is the key driver of digital economic growth. I'm sure the Government would not want copyright infringement to continue unabated across Australian networks, especially with the National Broadband Network soon to be rolled out."
----

[*] AFACT is the Australian equivalent of the RIAA/MPAA, or rather, as some Wikileaks memos have shown, they are the Australian arm of the RIAA/MPAA, the control directly coming from the States.

So, the copyright industry's attitude is that "if what we demand is unlawful, we will lobby/bribe/force the government to change the law to our favour". Knowing the Australian parliament, probably they will succeed in a reasonably short time.

Re:Don't be overjoyed yet... (3, Interesting)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742433)

I'm an Australian author (plug: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006RZNR3Y/ [amazon.com] ) who relies exclusively on digital sales and I strongly oppose any such fucking with our legal system.

Go away, AFACT. Nobody wants you to exist. Not the politicians. Not the voters. Not the readers (listeners/viewers/etc). Not the content creators.

Nobody.

AFACT serve only the Hollywood industry who is so inept and out of touch with what's going on around them that they senselessly blunder into things like this. They are dicks and their defeat in court -- an utterly humiliating and complete defeat where they had to pay all of iiNet's costs -- makes me cackle with glee.

you =fAIL it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742445)

BitTorrent) Seco$nd, There are some

Don't celebrate too quickly. (1)

warp_kez (711090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742613)

Just because the courts told them to rack-off, does not mean it is a victory.

They will start lobbying politicians with made up figures and bribes to do an end run around due process.

Beginning of the end! (2)

DuranDuran (252246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742701)

This is the thin end of the wedge. Soon there'll be no media companies, and then where will I get my remakes of films from the 70s and 80s? Or rock bands that sound like Lady Gaga?

Re:Beginning of the end! (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39742759)

You make your own whenever you want.

Re:Beginning of the end! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39742817)

When you say media companies, you're really referring to media cartels that try to control the products produced by real artists. What we are hopefully seeing is the end of these cartels that have been deciding for us what is worth producing and what we must pay to see, hear or read it. It's going to be a real blow to them but there are already independent artists, musicians, authors and movie production companies that are producing and distributing their products without the "help" of the cartels.

There was a case, in Canada, I think, where the CRIA tried to collect royalties on music from bands that were not actually signed up with them. The royalties would be held until the band signed agreements with the CRIA and then released to the band. However, it was proven, if I remember correctly, that even the bands that had already signed up with the CRIA were not getting their proper royalty payments so there was no real incentive for the independents to sign any agreements with the CRIA anyway.

And while the RIAA was crying that they were losing money to piracy they were trying to boost royalty charges for the rights to broadcast music and simultaneously trying to cut the share of those royalties to be paid to the actual artists.

No, the digital age is going to be a very hard time for the cartels. They can lobby to change the laws so that they can enforce all their copyrights as harshly as they wish but if it drives the artists and the public away, then they won't actually have done themselves any favours, will they?

And if it comes down to it, are the governments going to prosecute so many citizens that there will be more people in prisons for copyright violations than outside paying taxes to support those prisons? It just plain can't work.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?