Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

iinet wins Piracy Case!

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by evilsnoofy, Feb 4, 2010.

  1. From The Age:

    Link: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/iinet-slays-hollywood-in-landmark-piracy-case-20100204-ndwr.html


    Fantastic news!

     
     Top
  2. w00t now if only they hadnt shut down mininova
     
     Top
  3. finally a decent ruling =D>
     
     Top
  4. Wow… a sensible outcome…
     
     Top
  5. Thank god for that. I can only imagine the insanity that would follow should they have lost.
     
     Top
  6. I'm guessing Hollywood will already be planning their appeal...

    I like how AFACT have to pay iinet's costs though. *chortle*
     
     Top

  7. Interesting that they decided to go after iinet instead of one of the bigger companies. Looks to me like they were hoping to steamroll a soft target.
     
     Top
  8. Steamroll a soft target an get a precedent set.
    Then use that to push for the big fish
     
     Top
  9. Let's hope iinet were lawyered up to the hilt with very very expensive barristers
     
     Top

  10. Yeah that's the way I'm seeing it, which makes the spanking they got so much funnier.


    Indeed :D
     
     Top
  11. Well, a small victory, I wonder what is going to happen next though.
     
     Top
  12. Appeal. Sadly, it's not the end of this yet.
     
     Top
  13. Yeah no where near it, that's why I said small victory, all this loss means now is they will step up the game.
     
     Top
  14. Some interesting point in Justice Cowdery's decision:

    "There is no legal obligation or duty on any person to protect the copyright of a third party ... merely being indifferent or inactive in the knowledge that copyright infringement is occurring cannot possibly constitute authorisation."

    Also some protection seems to be given to individuals against arbitrary cancellation of your Internet access, the so called three strike rule. The judgment would appear to say that the courts are the only avenue to decide if a copyright infringement has occurred, not an ISP or an industry body.

    "If 'appropriate circumstances' are found to exist only when a Court finds someone to have infringed copyright, then the respondent's termination of an account for a reason which did not satisfy that requirement would expressly not be reasonable."

    From this article:

    It's reasonable that a high standard of proof is required before ISPs terminate customer accounts, and that carriage service providers are right to take a cautious attitude to allegations of copyright infringement. AFACT's notifications, the judge said, "are not statutory declarations, nor do they have any statutory basis", nor could AFACT's own evidence-gathering on its own be regarded as independent verification that infringement had taken place.
     
     Top
  15. It's quite true how going after iinet for not forwarding infringements is ridiculous. I mean it's kinda like hardware stores have to give warnings to customers that you could possible use those tools to kill someone. The internet's just a tool and it's the way that people use it.

    I'm surprised none of the lawyers have cracked it and tried to get the whole interwebs shut down.
     
     Top
  16. I'm curious... I've only got my internet to a decent speed in the last couple of days and I've downloaded...

    The Wire Season 5
    DeadWood
    Madmen
    Getting On
    Inglourious Basterds
    Twist of the Wrist 2
    Anvil

    And a few other things. Some of those are DVD's I'd have otherwise bought (Can't really afford though) How is the industry going to recoup the losses?
     
     Top
  17. Possibly by suing you, now that you've voluntarily confessed to your heinous crimes in public? :wink:
     
     Top
  18. Yeah, you're probably right! I'll be like that poor bloody woman in the states that got sued for millions.
     
     Top
  19. That penalty was so disproportionate to the crime.

    If the music studios were really 'damaged' by that one person to the sum that they were seeking in compensation they'd have gone broke eons ago.

    They wanted to make an example of her, and the courts let them. IMO the courtroom is not the place to make an example of people, its a place where people are tried and possibly punished in accordance to what they have done.

    But I doubt that its going to become open season for law suits here. Everyones favorite internet villain is just as likely to change the laws to make it an offence worthy of time at Her Majesty's pleasure.
     
     Top