Studios to appeal iiNET copyright ruling
Film studios are appealing a Federal Court ruling that iiNET was not responsible for the copyright infringement of its subscribers.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
Film studios are appealing a landmark Federal Court ruling that declared internet service provider iiNET was not responsible for the copyright infringement of its subscribers.
The group of 34 companies, including Channel Seven, is represented by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT).
AFACT executive director Neil Gane said, “The court found large scale copyright infringements, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them.
“In line with previous case law, this would have amounted to authorisation of copyright infringement.”
Mr Gane also said that if the decision is allowed to stand it will render safe harbour laws adopted in Australia as part of trade agreements with the US, which were designed to encourage ISPs to stop internet piracy, “ineffective”.
“If this decision stands, the ISPs have all the protection without any of the responsibility,” he said.
But iiNet chief Michael Malone said the case has not stopped one illegal download and further legal appeals will not stop piracy.
“The studios themselves admitted during the court hearings that making content freely and cheaply available online was an effective way to combat piracy,” he said.
“People are crying out to access the studios materials, so much so some are prepared to steal it.
“A more effective approach would be for the studios to make their content more readily and cheaply available online.
“New approaches and models, like Hulu and Freezone, are the most effective solution to the problem.”
In his ruling, Justice Cowdroy’s said “It is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement… (it) did not have relevant power to prevent infringements occurring,” Justice Cowdroy said in his judgment.”
The Seven Network has recently introduced its online catch-up service PLUS7.
Source: The Australian
18 Responses
Why is it the everyday folk who comment here seem to make the most sense when it comes to stuff like this? I love how these studios seem to know what is best and spend millions of dollars on trying to “fix the problem” when they really should take a look at the way their customers spend their time and money and work in a more effective way to make things fair for everyone… Wait, what planet am I on… Must be Pandora!
All their legal action epitomizes the problem with the whole industry. They have intangible product(s) that people want, but charge too much for it (not just to us, but to TV networks as well, which delays local broadcasting of a foreign show, which leaves some people who travel with a choice to either never watch it, miss lots of episodes in the middle or to download it to stay in sync).
When movies like avatar makes billions, its hard for the average person to care about them losing a few sales. I don’t download movies, I wait until Tight tuesdays or use a voucher and rent a cheap new release for $2, saving me at least $38 per movie (me + girlfriend ticket price).
Then as has been stated earlier we live in a i want it and i want it now society, the industry only have themselves to blame to dragging their heels. Until they come down off their platinum high horses they wont understand their customers, and will continue to alienate them and drive them away.
Tight ass Tuesday! What an Aussie institution.
Quoting Mr Gane: “If this decision stands, the ISPs have all the protection without any of the responsibility,”
Of course ISPs aren’t responsible – under the common carrier principle they are not responsible for what goes through their ‘pipes’. Just like Telstra isn’t responsible for someone making death threats using a telephone or Australia Post isn’t responsible for someone sending a bomb through the mail.
Those are illegal acts but the carrier does not bear the responsibility – the individual who made the threat or mailed the bomb are the ones who are hauled into court.
So if a person downloads an illegally-obtained copy of Two and a Half Men then AFACT should be chasing them down (with justification IMHO!) and prosecuting them through the courts. It appears that Mr Gane & Co are dodging their own responsibility and are looking for someone else to do their dirty work.
@KFed: They wanted an ISP who was large enough so that they couldn’t be accused of picking on “the little guy”. Obviously the 800 pound and 400 pound gorillas (Telstra and Optus) were too big and would have had much more $ to throw at their legal team. iiNet are also known for having a higher than average percentage of tech-savvy Users (as are Internode, who were apparently also considered as a potential target).
KFed, iiNet drew the short straw. AFACT wanted the ISP to be large enough to make the impact of the judgement significant should it resolve in their favour, but not too large as to be Telstra.
Can anybody explain why iiNet have been singled out over this? I am sure countless other ISPs could be accused of the same thing.
And then they will sue……
all the energy companies for providing power to the devices that allow the illegal activity
retailers for selling the devices in the first place etc etc
all these companies are really after is a system that they can totally monopolize and we as consumers are left helpless and at the mercy of these idiots.
How much more is it going to take for studios to realize that ISPs do not authorize illegal file-sharing? They should be shutting down the many BT clients instead.
As soon as something is released people want to get their hands on it. They don’t want to wait for months before Channel 7 show it. They want it now. They want it instantly. It’s the reason the Oscars are now shown live during the day and repeated at night.
I understand the risk in picking up a brand new show before it’s debuted in the US. What if it gets cancelled two weeks into the run? So what? Surely it’s good business for the US companies to make money instantly. Sell ‘Past Life’ to international networks at a reasonable price before it tanks in the US and they’re forced to hand it off in a 5 for the price of 1 bargain bin offer a couple of years from now.
Studios seem to think that it’s consumers out to get them but they have a product that consumers are desperate to get their hands on. And they don’t know what to do about that. They’ve got unprecedented demand for a product and they don’t how to profit from it so they just lash out like little kids.
The judgement makes it extremely clear that iiNet are not responsible for what goes over their network (unless a court order compels them to intercept connections), just like how a phone network isn’t responsible for what is communicated over their networks, and AFACT are pretending they didn’t lose.
I don’t see this appeal going anywhere. Appeals generally have to focus on errors that the judge has made interpreting the law, not that they didn’t like the outcome.
For their sake, I really hope they co-operate with ISPs to enable them to sell their content through the Internet legally. Lawsuits don’t solve these types of problems, and even if they win, people will simply encrypt their traffic and cover their tracks.
ISPs need protection from corporate manipulation and intimidation.
@Burt….that’s what I mean about hollywood moving with the times…go digital…a lot easier to release worldwide…guess the downside is it is also a lot easier to get digital movies onto the net/dvds…
Blockbusters like avatar are always going to be better “on the big screen”
It costs a US film studio about $US100 mill in film print costs to release a film on the same day the world over, hence why it’s usually only done for super
grossing films they know will do extremely well. They’d save all that and billions a year, if all cinemas switched to digital projection and it’s surprising this hasn’t yet happened. If all Aus cinemas had digital projection, they’d all be able to show 3D films (not just only a couple cinemas in a multiplex) and they wouldn’t be able to slug filmgoers extra for those particular movies, like they do now.
How much money is Hollywood willing to Lose over this?
Hey look, we flogged the dead horse already, let’s try again, we’ve got nothing better to do, it’s not like we could spend this money on more Australian productions, no no, we’ll waste it in court so we feel better about ourselves.
Idiots.
This appeal is lunacy.
How about moving with the times…make new release dvds cheaper (say $10 disc $5 download), make tv show downloads cheaper/free depending on screening dates.
Also, release movies simultaneously worldwide…piracy will never be stopped but there are some moves studios could make to dampen it.
Plus, the studios talk about the billions they have lost…how?!?…most downloaders were never going to go to the cinema anyway.
Avatar made quite a bit methinks…
I won’t be using the 7PLUS until it’s unmetered like iVIEW but even on 1.5Mbit connection that service is choppy, I’d hate to watch Lost or Cougar Town on 7PLUS if it acts the same.