INternet can be cut off for downloading music/movies illegally

[vztrt]

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...301-1bcr4.html

I'm hoping downloading TV shows that have been on FTA TV will be legal.

Net pirate ruling may force ISPs to cut off cheats
Ben Grubb
March 3, 2011 - 11:28AM

Australian households now face the very real possibility of having their ISP disconnect or suspend them from the internet if they pirate films or music online.

And with the film industry claiming that one in every three Australians has committed movie theft, and that it lost $1.37 billion in a 12-month period to piracy as a whole, many will probably be targeted.

Although the Federal Court last week dismissed an appeal case brought against ISP iiNet by major film studios, lawyers say the judgment paves the way for copyright holders to improve the copyright infringement notices they send to ISPs and therefore compel them to do something about unauthorised downloads.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The film studios, represented publicly in the case by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), claimed that the ISP had "authorised" its users' copyright infringement by doing nothing to stop it from occurring.

In a 2:1 judgment, the full bench of the Federal Court held iiNet not liable for acts of copyright infringement committed by users of its internet service. But the court left open in its judgment the possibility that, in different circumstances, an ISP may be held liable for authorisation of their users' infringements, according to law firm Freehills, and therefore have to do something about it.

Senior associate at law firm Middletons, Troy Gurnett, who specilises in intellectual property, said that Justice Arthur Emmett, who was lead judge in the case, had "in effect spelt out for the copyright owners [in his judgment] what they will need to do next time". "Some people are describing [the judgment] almost like a scheme, other people are describing it as a cheat sheet," he said.

Litigation lawyer and specialist in intellectual property and technology law at Clayton Utz, John Fairbairn, said that although last Thursday's judgment ruled in favour of iiNet, the film industry was given a very clear way going forward to stop Australians from downloading movies and music illegally via their ISP.

"As it stands, [the judgment] opens the way for copyright owners ... to improve the quality of the notices they provide to ISPs and also potentially put in place a regime where they'll agree to meet [the ISP's] costs [to act on the notices]," Mr Fairbairn said. "And if they meet those requirements, an ISP may then come under an obligation to either send warning notices to those users [who download illegally] or to terminate the accounts of users that are repeat infringers."

Litigation lawyer and also a specialist in intellectual property and technology law at Freehills, Campbell Thompson, said that there was "a lot" in the judgment which was "positive for copyright owners".

"The judgments provide guidance on the circumstances in which ISPs will be liable for authorising copyright infringement," Mr Thompson said.

In a nutshell, this means an ISP such as Telstra, Optus or iiNet, among others, could easily be compelled by copyright owners to warn their customers about copyright infringements alleged to have occurred using a customers' connection - and if the ISP continues to receive notices, terminate the customer's service.

"As of [the day before the judgment] the law was that the ISP really had no obligation to take any steps to interfere in the activities of its users if it was acting merely as an ISP and if it had no other relationship with that consumer other than it was a user of those ISP services," said Clayton Utz's John Fairburn.

"So what this decision does is it unwinds that to some extent and says 'Well no, you've got to look at the individual facts and in this case ISPs do have the power to prevent the infringements by terminating accounts or by sending warning notices'. It all depends on the degree of knowledge that [the ISPs] have and even though we have three judgments there is consensus on that point," he said.

Where the judges differed was on what was required to give iiNet the level of knowledge to actually take steps against users who infringed on film and music studio's copyright, Mr Fairburn said.

He said one judge believed that the existing notices were sufficient, whereas "[the other two] judges thought that they weren't".

Fairburn said in his judgment, the lead judge, Justice Arthur Emmett, set out "what [AFACT] would need to do for [Justice Arthur Emmett] to consider there was an obligation to take steps and that includes unequivocal and cogent evidence of the infringement and some form of undertaking to reimburse the ISP for the costs of taking those steps and to indemnify it in the event termination of that users' account was unlawful".

Before the litigation began against iiNet, AFACT had been sending iiNet a list of customer IP addresses it had collated using a firm called DtecNet that would monitor (using the internet) iiNet users who were allegedly sharing or downloading unauthorised films using the BitTorrent protocol.

BitTorrent, according to the company that maintains it, is a protocol that allows internet users to download files quickly by allowing people downloading the file to upload (distribute) parts of it at the same time.

An IP address is assigned by an ISP to its customers and can be used to identify them if cross matched with records. AFACT had been sending copyright infringement notices to iiNet with those IP addresses, alleging certain customers had infringed on their members' copyright using BitTorrent.

However, Justice Arthur Emmett said in his judgment that "mere assertion by an entity such as AFACT, with whatever particulars of the assertion that may be provided, would not, of itself, constitute unequivocal and cogent evidence of the doing of acts of infringement".

What would was spelt out in his judgment. "Information as to the way in which the material supporting the allegations was derived, that was adequate to enable iiNet to verify the accuracy of the allegations, may suffice," he said. "Verification on oath as to the precise steps that were adopted in order to obtain or discern the relevant information may suffice but may not be necessary."

In a letter to iiNet before the litigation, AFACT said that it could contact each of its customers, could warn them against infringement and could impose sanctions if they continued to infringe copyright using iiNet's network, despite the warnings.

In terms of what sanctions AFACT were after is unknown. Middletons' Troy Gurnett said that he believed what AFACT were after was "a series of warnings but ultimately they are looking for the ISPs to either suspend or terminate their users' services".

He said that this would give more meaning to "the copyright owner’s war against internet piracy".

"I think that’s what they are looking for; they’re looking for either suspension or termination ultimately for repeat infringers," Mr Gurnett said.

But iiNet formed the view that it would not accept “the responsibility of judge and jury in order to impose arbitrary and disproportionate penalties purely on the allegations of AFACT”. Shortly after forming this view it was taken to court by AFACT.

"Losing the case wasn’t all doom and gloom for the copyright owners," Middletons' Troy Gurnett said. "They have been given some very strong clues about what they need to do in order to progress their fight against internet piracy."

Given this, Freehils' Campbell Thompson predicted "a fresh round of [infringement] notices" would be sent from AFACT [to ISPs]". The notices would now likely carry the information listed in the judgment "cheat sheet" Middletons' Troy Gurnett referred to.

In a recent opinion piece on this website, David Brennan, an associate professor at Melbourne University, said the film companies may consider their lost appeal a win on its own "and if so there will not be a further appeal to the High Court", which they have 28 days from when the judgment was handed down to do so.

In a statement, iiNet said that "if AFACT or anyone else puts forward a workable proposal we are of course prepared to examine it".

AFACT executive director, Neil Gane, said he agreed "the judgment certainly paved the way for ISPs to be held accountable for online infringement".

On the matter of termination or suspension of internet users, Gane said AFACT had "never stated that termination is reasonable or unreasonable", despite asking ISP iiNet to impose sanctions, without naming what they might be.

[SM1DY]

There not losing any money if I have no intention of buying that movie or listening to that music in the first place.

[xisled]

This has been happening for years, My friend got disconnected by Optus for downloading movies in 2004. It is not new. And if you do download anything illegal you are usually in breach of your agreement with your service provider and can be disconnected at any time.

[ThaFlash]

why do you hope it's illegal?

[Bucknaked]

So what are people going to do with 100gb plans?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

So what are people going to do with 100gb plans?

Its for all my Linux distros, man....

[SM1DY]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

So what are people going to do with 100gb plans?

Xbox Live

[HI PSI]

100 Gb of porn.... It has no copyrite...

[FGII-XR6]

but it won't get through the proposed filter ( without proxies that is )

Originally Posted by HI PSI

100 Gb of porn.... It has no copyrite...

[MYVYSS]

Dan, Dan, Dan...

As fast as they come up with a Legal way to get you to stop, and or to "TRY" to stop you....

100 others will work a way out to get around it, at worse everyone will join Usenet or similar and they the stupid AFACT/MPAA wont be able to see what you are downloading. Either that or everyone will create and or join a VPN and the same result..

Here is a better idea, why not have "them" join the rest of the world and stop raping/charging ridiculous amounts of money for something that has either already made huge money in the cinema's and or 20-40 bucks a DVD that actually costs 29 cents to produce. Change the distribution model and profit. Last time I checked I have never seen a poor Movie Executive/Record Label boss or Movie distribution company.

[Fled74]

Watching MTV Cribs makes me feel better about downloading pirated music off the net.

[Riksta]

Originally Posted by MYVYSS

Here is a better idea, why not have "them" join the rest of the world and stop raping/charging ridiculous amounts of money for something that has either already made huge money in the cinema's and or 20-40 bucks a DVD that actually costs 29 cents to produce. Change the distribution model and profit. Last time I checked I have never seen a poor Movie Executive/Record Label boss or Movie distribution company.

I totally agree.

Even do what they did with blank cassettes, put a small levy on blank CD's/DVD's to go towards the record/movie companies to cover anybody who may use them to pirate something.

When it comes to digital distribution, its a great idea. Steam was fantastic at first, being able to get games for US$49.99 that were anywhere from $80-$100 in store. I know I purchased quite a few games I wouldn't normally have due to cost through Steam. Then some publishers on there decided that the Australian market should pay more than the rest of the world and now certain games are US$89 on Steam and in store. Guess what? Back to less legitimate methods of obtaining those ones.

I love how there's so many DVD's at bargain & clearout prices, same with BluRay discs. JB have a sale on at the moment, $15 BluRay discs, buy 2 and get one free. Movies getting on a year or two now, or classics, but a brand new movie will still set you back $40 or so. And yet I bet it cost the same amount to produce. So at $40 say 500,000 people buy it. Drop it to even half and perhaps 1,000,000 people will buy it. So you've halved the price and doubled the sales, pretty well same profit you're going to be making (will be off due to manufacturing etc but pretty spot on).

I know for a fact I would buy a HELL of a lot more brand new movies on DVD/Blu Ray if they were cheaper. These days I just hire them and kindly back them up for the video shop, or "rent" them from certain websites for the cost of a bit of my download quota.

They put on a tariff on each item sold to cover for a couple of pirate copies, price goes up, more people pirate, tariff goes up to cover, its a vicious cycle! ;) (I think they actually do tariff this way on some software, doubt its on movies/music but wouldn't surprise me).

[Ben73]

I haven't downloaded illegal stuff for years.
I am no longer poor so I don't have to worry about buying a movie every now and then.

This thread makes me want to download pirated stuff again!

[Neale]

just did the maths on what the movie industry recons they lost. Im no maths wiz so correct me if im wrong.
But they recon that 1 in 3 people downloaded movies illegaly which resulted in a loss of 1.37 billion in 12 months.

This is how I see it

Australia's population is 22,578,236

Divide that by 3 = 7,526,075 people that download illegal movies.

Then divide $1,370,000,000 by the 7,526,075 people

If thats the case then those people would have spent $1820 on movies. So at $30 per DVD thats around 61 DVD's per year.

Thats one huge colletion of DVD's


Maybe they didnt do their maths to realise that they werent going to sell as many DVD's as the expected so they blame the internet.

[Spudz27]

I am of the belief that if I like it I buy it, if unsure then download it. I have a collection of over 200 bluray and dvd's, so I feel I have payed enough money to those companies, as a show of appreciation they should allow me to download a couple of movies for free.

[fmc351]

Apparently one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit is Seven Group Holdings (Ch7), who happen to have a subsidiary which is an ISP. And guess what, they dont throttle p2p either. Yet they leveled complaints based on iiNets refusal to utilise mechanisms available to them to stop such traffic. iiNet do throttle, but only when dealing with network congestion as do most ISP's.

The hypocrisy.

[Rodp]

SSL connection to Usenet. No-one can sniff the data coming in. Many Linux distros.

Torrents suck!

[XC GXL]

Kinda gets me over here in the UK as we pay a TV licencing fee to the BBC (government) therefore we technically own the productions that are for sale on DVD etc so why do they sell for £15 (ish) I've already paid .
I don't understand.
Also cut all the cr@p with Oscars etc which cost a blØØdy fortune and cut some of the actors (and hangars on) wages. Few Million for a movie we don't earn that in a lifetime.

Wayne

[Fev]

iiNet tried this sort of thing in America. It didn't happen.

[FgNewbie]

Originally Posted by SM1DY

There not losing any money if I have no intention of buying that movie or listening to that music in the first place.

Ditto.

If pricing was cheaper, I might actually be interested in buying the occassional movie / dvd that will ultimately become a coaster for a coffee cup.

[nstg8a]

i still view piracy as theft, pure and simple, imo it is no different to walking into the nearest cd/dvd store grabbing what you want and walking out the door.

[FgNewbie]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

i still view piracy as theft, pure and simple, imo it is no different to walking into the nearest cd/dvd store grabbing what you want and walking out the door.

Viewing it as theft won't help them get an additional $1.37 billion from Australians which is ultimately what they want.

There is plenty to watch on Foxtel and free to air without buying expensive frizbees to watch once.

Out of curiosity, how much a year do you spend on movies?

Originally Posted by Neale

just did the maths on what the movie industry recons they lost. Im no maths wiz so correct me if im wrong.
But they recon that 1 in 3 people downloaded movies illegaly which resulted in a loss of 1.37 billion in 12 months.

This is how I see it

Australia's population is 22,578,236

Divide that by 3 = 7,526,075 people that download illegal movies.

Then divide $1,370,000,000 by the 7,526,075 people

If thats the case then those people would have spent $1820 on movies. So at $30 per DVD thats around 61 DVD's per year.

Thats one huge colletion of DVD's


Maybe they didnt do their maths to realise that they werent going to sell as many DVD's as the expected so they blame the internet.

[fmc351]

Arrr me hearties.

[MexicanBatman]

I download lots, but on the other hand I also buy more dvd's and go to the cinemas more than everyone I know..

Downloading is not theft

When I'm done with my mags I give them away, am I going to jail for that too?

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by FgNewbie

Vie
There is plenty to watch on Foxtel and free to air without buying expensive frizbees to watch once.wing it as theft won't help them get an additional $1.37 billion from Australians which is ultimately what they want.


Out of curiosity, how much a year do you spend on movies?

lol, certainly nowhere near $1820...

i dont buy many, maybe 20 a year, rent most, and have recently started using itunes more for movies.

ironically, bought one dvd and one cd today. pure impulse buy, saw the dvd as i walked past the shop then when i went to buy it got tempted by the cd lol

Originally Posted by MexicanBatman

Downloading is not theft

whats your reasoning behind that? not trying to start an arguement, just trying to see what makes people think its ok

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

whats your reasoning behind that? not trying to start an arguement, just trying to see what makes people think its ok

I don't consider it theft but I certainly consider it a crime. I mostly download TV shows from other countries which is also considered a crime but the laws that cover that IMO are archaic and steps are being made by stations to provide the content digitally with embedded ads.

I also download The Howard Stern Show each day. Though, I pay for the service in which his show is broadcast on. I do it for convenience since the satellite signal is not available in Australia so I can only stream it over the internet. Easier to carry it as an mp3 file on my phone instead of running an app, burning up mobile MB's and having the opportunity to listen to ~1/10th of the show. By doing that, I'm still committing a crime.

The figures that get thrown out about the financial impact on the industry are inaccurate if you ask me. In the past, I may have downloaded an album or two but the bands I enjoy I'll buy their CD or download it from iTunes. Of the music I've downloaded, I'll check it out and if I like it, it may end up being one of those bands I'll end up buying. If I never downloaded it, I would never have bought it.

Games, the same. I've bought many a game after downloading it to try it out on my machine. Haven't skimped on that regard though, my closet in my bedroom is jam packed with boxed games (much to the missus' annoyance) and a quick look at my Steam list shows 195 games.. (including Dragon Age II which I finished pre-loading only moments ago).

[Ben73]

The old excuse "I only download to see if i like it" doesn't work as well anymore, for songs at least.
I mean you can pretty much find every song on youtube these days.

Having said that, I personally don't care whether people download or buy.

[FG XR]

Big deal they disconnect you then u go elsewhere

[Zero_PSI]

Been disconnected a few times. Cant really say why lol

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by SM1DY

There not losing any money if I have no intention of buying that movie or listening to that music in the first place.

Agreed.

Back in the day, you'd by a blank tape and copy an original.

Today if I 'wouldn't mind' seeing a movie why pay for it. If I had to I wouldn't watch it!
Where as if it's awesome, then I would by it. Especially for the doco's, making of, etc.

Stopping DLC will not increase the film makers margins significantly.