It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Film industry starts landmark piracy case against iiNet

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Film industry starts landmark piracy case against iiNet


www.news.com.au

AUSTRALIANS who share pirated movies online could have their internet connections cancelled under a legal claim that got underway in a Sydney court today.

The local film industry is taking on iiNet, Australia's third-largest internet service provider (ISP), with claims it allows users to illegally share copyright material.

If the group of 34 film companies wins the case, Australian ISPs could be forced to monitor and cut off customers who share pirated movies.

[Continued...]

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6/10/2009 by Dark Ghost]




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Never thought I would see this happen in Australia. This is one of the ugly first signs of Internet Censorship. That they are choosing to take on the 3rd largest ISP in Australia says something about the motive in my opinion. This is not just about stopping theft of movies and music. Somehow, I get the feeling that this is not about protecting artists and their creative works...

Also note that this article was originally front page news on most websites, but has now almost sunk into the unknown. They want iiNET to concede quietly and give in to their demands without any resistance. Will the Australian public even hear about this? Or is 'Master Chef' more important than the average citizen's Internet freedoms?

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6/10/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
This is a tough one
I am not for internet censorship however i'm not sure if that's what this is

pirated movies IS theft

Before we call them greedy we should first find a way to have a suitable way of tackling this issue. Any thoughts?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
NOOOOOO!! not iinet

This is sad, looks like censorship to me.

Why iinet? why not go for one of the bigger boys?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
This is no surprise. Chasing after "piracy" costs the media companies about three times what they claim to lose in sales and when you look at the loss claims in terms of what they sue file sharers for that number is inflated by at least 1000.

In short, chasing after the "pirates" costs them too much to sustain as a business model. This is the hard proof that the losses they claim are fictional.

Most people who obtain content online claim they would not have purchased it otherwise or that they do eventually purchase it after being able to sample it without time limits or functional limitations.

This is yet another example of the media companies trying to prop up a failed business model by asking someone else, namely the ISPs and ultimately the ISP customers to pay the extra costs of maintaining said business model.

Meanwhile, music artists and other content producers who bypass the industry model such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are finding they are making more money than they did under the industry model, increasing their fanbases and ultimately proving there is no need to pay the traditional media industry in order to succeed. As these artists create mechanisms for new artists to also join the new model the benefits will be many. The customers will enjoy better content without industry accountants playing "artistic director" and the artists will be able to make the kind of music and movies they want to.

ISP enforcement costs more than media industry is losing

Welcome to yet another example of a failed business who thinks the customers and taxpayers have a responsibility to prop them up and keep them in private jets and mansions. This sense of entitlement among the ultra wealthy is becoming a bigger and bigger problem, simply due to the influence these people can buy in government.

We need to fight things like this and also dump the politicians who choose to represent the people paying them off over the voters.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I wish they wouldn't have done that. No offense to the film industry but you won't win, there are just too many ways around it. It's the way of the future whether you wish to believe it or not. If people like the movie then they will buy a hard copy, it's not like most of the movies that are shared are in HD quality.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I'm with iiNet so this case is of particular interest to me.

The assertion that downloaded movies and tv from the torrent network is not providing limited functionality is false. The shows are compressed into workable file sizes but that compression leaves the video of much lesser quality than DVD. Still very watchable, but you see the compression errors and the picture is ever so slightly fuzzy - like watching a decent quality youtube clip. This very much so falls under the category of "limited functionality".

Look, it's as simple as this IMO. The media companies need to wake up and realise that the glory days of their business models are over. I understand what those people are like, my father is one - he refuses to join the 21st century - HiFi to him is still a new word!

Until this happens, piracy is here to stay. I guarantee you though, if those downloaders were provided with the service and quality that is expected of 21st century digital technology, most would happily pay for it. I say most because in EVERY human society there is a die-hard criminal element that you just can't get rid of.

[edit on 6/10/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I find it hilarious you can call this censorship, when its plain and simple fact that downloading movies, music and software illegally is..... (drum roll).... illegal!


Wake up people.

Its one thing to fight for your rights, but its another thing to be ignorant of your rights and fight for them.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MrSmith
 


I know its illegal, but i think there is a bit more to it.
IMO i think they are picking on iinet, because they are giving the big boys a run for their money and have moved their way up to 3rd as an ISP, they have better plans and are cheaper then the big 2 (Telstra & OPTUS) and they are not happy about it.

Telstra would be the largest ISP so why not go after them first?



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wycky
NOOOOOO!! not iinet

This is sad, looks like censorship to me.

Why iinet? why not go for one of the bigger boys?


I have no idea about laws in Australia but i do know about the laws of this planet and that is that the law never goes after the big boys. Instead they selectively enforce the law on the little guy and put them out of business and then the big boys rejoice.

I just did a little search and it seems that IPrimus is a leading isp in Austrailia. I am certain they have users that use torrents. Maybe they should be involved in this litigation.


[edit on 7-10-2009 by Beefcake]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
This has zero to do with internet piracy. The bigger game being played here relates to the loss of civil liberty and the right to privacy. Enter Big Brother and the Nanny State. Sometimes I wonder if I'm living in Australia or China.

If iiNET capitulate, they are selling their customers up the river and I would suggest anyone paying for their services promptly cancel.

IRM



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
This all ties in with the government’s attempt at the Internet filter program.

See, because they lost that argument with the populace they thought
'' If we can filter there internet, we'll control their internet ''

Thus, the national broadband upgrade. Now they don’t need to lobby for the filter, they are going to design the internet for Australia, they will filter it, which means, no downloading of movies.

Problem with that is, IINET and other ISP's already beat Telstra and Optus, by providing high-speed internet.

The government has realized the only obstacle left against their broadband rollout is private companies that match what the government is offering.

Australian courts and corporate programs are some of the most rigged in the world.
IINET will lose this, even if they win it!

I'm with IINET, $89 per month naked. Gives me 90GB on peak 90GB off peak.
That 180GB A month.
An average movie is, what.... 800mb - 1gb?

Thats a lot of money being saved for me.
But, it’s a lot of money the multi billionaire film markers aren’t getting too.

Sadly, the world of downloads is slowly being phased out.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
pirated movies IS theft


The only way that this equates to theft is to actually change or widen the definition of theft.

In English Law* part of what defines theft is the act of permanently depriving someone of something they own. Digital piracy in no way covers this. If you duplicatean object, the owner isn't actually deprived of that object: they still have it. It becomes a weird post-modern argument rather than the traditional notion of 'theft'.

You could argue that you're depriving them from earnings and not the actual object but that's a very different thing from theft. Also, it's very hard to prove anyway. Although the likes of the RIAA like to think this, there's no way that it can be shown that every 'pirated' digital artefact somehow equates to a lost sale. It's an argument that doesn't even make sense. A 14-year-old boy with a hard-drive of hundreds and hundreds of ripped CDs is very unlikely to have been in any position to have actually bought them at his age as it's unlikely he'd had ever had the income to have legitimately bought them. How can these be genuine lost sales? It's not as if he couldhave bought them but was placed in a position where, for one reason or another, didn't have to.





*yes, I know this story is based in Australia but this kind of nonsense sets international precedents and, also, the UK and the US seem to be doing a lot of 'redefining' legal things over the last decade or so.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
The issue here is that the studios are trying to force ISP's to disconnect customers without having the legal standing to do so.

If AFACT or any other organisation sends a take-down or warning notice to an ISP, that ISP should ignore it as it is merely an allegation and has not been proven in a court of law.

AFACT has targeted an ISP because it is too costly to proceed down the proper legal avenue and sue individual downloaders. Its also a PR disaster for the studios.

Iinet has done nothing wrong IMO by ignoring the notices. In fact, they are upholding their contract with their customers and obeying the rule of law, as well as upholding the old "innocent until proven guilty" principle that western legal systems are supposed to assume.

I just hope that the judge in this case makes the right decision.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Bumping this important thread. Sure it's only in Australia but it may set a precedent for the entire globe. Amazed this thread hasn't received more attention!



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Pirating Movies IS STEALING! Same with music and software..

Of course they need to do something like this in order to keep the industry from completely collapsing.

When a group of Movie producers get together to try and stop ISP's from allowing the free sharing of movies that cost millions of hard earned euro's... How is that NWO internet censorship?

Please, someone explain that to me.

Not everything is a conspiracy and if this one is, its an extremely long winded one.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo
Pirating Movies IS STEALING! Same with music and software..

Of course they need to do something like this in order to keep the industry from completely collapsing.



Believe it or not, it's the extortive prices charged at cinemas that is also a major contributer to the sharing of movies via the internet. I guess it all comes back to corporate greed... and us small guys being able to stick it to the man!

I don't personally download movies (56k connection) but I do not go to the cinema as much as I would like to due to afore mentioned prices. I wait for the DVD release and enjoy having the best seat in the house.

I guess we need to sue Google as well. They provide online technology whereby those that wish to download illegal content can using said technology. Why don't we go one step further and sue Microsoft for providing an operating system that facilitates theft? Intel, ASUS, MAC and Co. for providing the supporting hardware? Hell.. while we are at it, we can ban the sale of iPods and MP3 players!

Oh.. that's right... that's silly because they are massive corporate entities... and household names! Untouchables!

IRM



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Going after the Internet providers is just the WRONG WAY to do things. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. That's like suing the phone company because someone is verbally breaking the law on the phone, or suing GM because the bank robbers getaway car was a GM. Why doesn't the police dept arrest the ISP for allowing users to transmit child porn? Or prosecute Hotmail because it was used to setup a drug deal?

Seriously, we could go on for days with similar examples.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
pirated movies IS theft


The only way that this equates to theft is to actually change or widen the definition of theft.

In English Law* part of what defines theft is the act of permanently depriving someone of something they own. Digital piracy in no way covers this. If you duplicatean object, the owner isn't actually deprived of that object: they still have it. It becomes a weird post-modern argument rather than the traditional notion of 'theft'.



One of the other difficulties they (RIAA etc.) find in Australia is that to infringe on a copyright you must profit from the material, ie. you download a movie and then sell that disc. This is one of the reasons litigation against single people does not work very well in Aussie.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
So if I use my DVR to record a movie and then burn it to DVD is that illegal? I mean after all the satellite/cable company sent the feed to my home right? I paid for their service didn’t I? If it is then why make that technology so easily available?

What about when I borrow a movie from a friend and watch it. It cost me nothing and I watched the movie. Is that illegal?


I know people that download movies watch them and then delete them. I ask them why and they said the movie was not worth keeping. I don’t see much different in the examples I gave above. I have rented movies that I wish I could get my money back for. They totally sucked and I would have been really mad had I paid at the theater or paid to own the movie. So I understand the whole deleting a movie after watching it. I wish I could delete a few from my brain after watching them.

I seem to think myself that a lot of this is just the beginnings of internet censorship myself. I am glad I really don’t watch more than educational stuff, aside from the occasional movie on date night when my wife wants to watch one. The amount of money I spend on watching movies would bankrupt the industry if everyone was like me lol. I rent a movie maybe once a month or watch one on satellite, aside from that they do not get my money. I also borrow from friends so they still do not get money from me.

I wonder with all the talk recently if AU is not going to be the testing grounds for all out internet censorship.

Raist



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join