Film companies sue iiNet 'for allowing piracy'

Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by Asgaldh, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. influx

    influx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    12,979
    Location:
    Subiaco
    AFACT hasn't actually lost comprehensively, in fact, the judgement of Emmett J in the FCFCA actually sets out how they can set themselves up a winning position by changing the way they issue infringement notices.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2011/23.html
    so basically under this test proposed by Emmett J, AFACT did two out of four on the list, if they had done four out of four he would have found in their favour.

    e: beaten but I quoted the relevant bit of the judgement.
     
  2. FiShy

    FiShy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    9,682
    This:

    iiNet has been provided with unequivocal and cogent evidence of the alleged primary acts of infringement by use of the iiNet service in question. 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. 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. 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.



    AFACT cant supply this so, nothing has changed.
     
  3. mshagg

    mshagg Politburo

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    23,089
    Location:
    Adelaide
    I think, in such circumstances, iiNet could respond reasonably well.

    i.e.

    - OK, we want $50 per investigation - you want us to look at 5000 accounts before we cut them off? That'll be $250,000 thanks.

    And

    - OK, you indemnified us for cutting these people off. Well we just cut off 5000 customers, they're pissed and they're coming after us for $$$.
     
  4. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,060
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
  5. Zee

    Zee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2002
    Messages:
    10,613
    Location:
    SYD/MNL/SIN/SFO
    I'm happy to pay $30 for a BD copy of the movie with the above. I have a projector and quite a reasonable surround system - downloads looks and sound like crap in comparison, thus, I'm quite willing to pay extra for the only media that can currently deliver what I want. I would prefer, though, that DRM be scrapped (reduced load time) and that I'm not accused of being a Pirate after having coughed up the money to buy a copy that gives the "offical channels" all their dues. I'll also happily skip the adds, thanks.

    Odd that to get what I actually want (apart form the BD copy) I don't nee dto pay anything at all. Quite tragic, and something the studios ought to look in to before tellin gus about the sticks in our eyes.


    It always amazes me that these companies have no forward thinkers. Imagine the potential of finding a way to harnass torrents or other file sharing services to make money. Apple have kind of done it with iTunes, Rhapsody and such services seem to be making it in the US (and here, if you buy the right product -eg. Sonos)

    Unfortunately, I kind of stand against them, in a way, as it seems to have become a way to deliver poor quality audio for almost the same price - but I disgress, it's a start, and clearly the model has potential. Faster net speeds may end up providing lossless versions of movies and audio to be sold digitially in the future. In the mean time, I wonder how far the money so far wasted on court costs globally could have gone to setting up a legal money making distribution system? I'm guessing it would probably work subscription style, like cable, and you just download the show/movie you want once you pay your $XX/month fee. I'd much rather pay for that than Fox, that is for sure.

    Z...
     
  6. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,364
    Location:
    Melbourne
    depends on what you are downloading. DVD-5 images are doing it for me.

    I'm sure you've seen this, but I just love the concept so much I have to post it.


    Click to view full size!


    I'm quite sure it's to do with boardrooms full of old people wearing suits who still remember the days when children called adults sir and ma'am. combine with bean counters who are more married to their financial model than their spouses and it will be a long time until the industry is dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

    reality is what you've got, as opposed to what you'd like. it tends to be what people do, as opposed what they're supposed to do. that's life, and I don't believe the boardrooms of the world can quite deal with that.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2011
  7. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    142,229
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    Errrr, not true I don't think, there is some brilliant quality stuff out there.
     
  8. iSTELTHYi

    iSTELTHYi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,966
    Location:
    Radelaide
    I was still talking TV Show eps (dollar an ep or something)

    $10 seems justified for a movie if it was different to the current setup (pay per view). I like to rewatch movies, so any 'legal' setup i'd e happy to pay for would have to offer this.



    In refrence to influx's post, had similar warnings from my ISP, but all it said was 'this is just an allegation, and no details will be handed over unless criminal proccedings take place'

    In other words, 'we know what you're doing, but we'd rather your money than not at all'...
     
  9. itsmydamnation

    itsmydamnation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    10,402
    Location:
    Canberra
    yeah 2 pass H264 720P, about 2gig for 2 hours, looks great
     
  10. Renegade40D

    Renegade40D Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,337
    Location:
    NSW
    I dont undestand why people assume "downloaded" movies are going to be bad quality..... You can get full 1080p BR copies, exactly the same as if it where on the disc.
     
  11. Aetherone

    Aetherone Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,595
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    Possibly the same people who think that 3G is "broadband" and a BR rip is either 6 months worth of data or so many $$ to DL its cheaper to buy hardcopy?
     
  12. iSTELTHYi

    iSTELTHYi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,966
    Location:
    Radelaide
    To some people a BR rip IS 6 months worth of downloads....usually Failstra customers tho...
     
  13. lavi

    lavi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,004
    Location:
    Brisbane
    how many users do you think you can get in a year where they pay a $50/month to watch anything they want the moment its out at the cinema?

    say you get about 10million users across the globe, will that make them more money than they make now? i doubt it, will also drive the cinema industry to hell

    i stand by what i said ages ago, if it's digital it will get pirated but look at Apple's model ... they are thriving where Blackberry and Nokia are sinking, why? simple they give users what they want, yes they still keep the users in their echo system but it's a system that works

    the movie industry is tied with the tv networks and advertising, take 2 and half men, on torrents it's got like tens of thousands of people downloading it and 80% of those prefer to download it because they can watch it 1 or 2 hours at max later with no adds

    I for one don't watch more than a few hours a week of commercial TV, i even watch my soccer games online, why? because it suits my lifestyle a lot better, no adds no breaks and i choose who the commentator is for my soccer game

    say the movie industry releases all the blockbusters the same week on a streaming service to home users ... the cinema industry will go up in smoke, the tv station will have nobody watching movies with adds, cable companies will go up in smoke but the bottom line the movie companies will make more money! they just don't see it, they actually spilt their profits with cable companies, cinema industry, tv stations and a heck of a lot more and it's not them who complain about piracy, it's the cable/tv stations as their survivability comes from adds
     
  14. iSTELTHYi

    iSTELTHYi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,966
    Location:
    Radelaide
    Times change. Drive-ins are almost dead now (only 2 left in SA). It'll follow soon for the cinema's (moreso because a decent size tv/good surround speakers are more affordable now than they were 5 years ago)
     
  15. HUMMER

    HUMMER Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    8,786
    Location:
    sydney
    times do indeed change. there still money to be made.

    tv stations can still make money having ads before and after tv shows/movies.

    cable service providers can provide on demand movies.

    pay tv can provide no ads service. i mean who really wants to pay for tv and still get ads?
     
  16. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,870
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    Also means you can belt the shit out of anyone who talks etc.
     
  17. chunksoul

    chunksoul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,390
    Location:
    adelaide millswood
    what annoys me about all this is

    the unwillingness to provide what i want from an entertainment provider.

    For example foxtel.

    I don't want adds if i pay for pay tv.

    I want to be able to pay a little less per month and just get the channels i want.

    For normal tv i would be happy to pay between 10 and 15$ a month to watch what i want when i want from the internet.

    I pay for broadband league pass from NBA.com cause it suits what i want.

    It was the same as the music industry. It didn't adapt to technology and it got screwed over by itunes.
     
  18. lavi

    lavi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,004
    Location:
    Brisbane
    foxtel sux ... i remember in 2000 or when they started there were no adds and that was ok now it's full of adds, so you pay to view adds? they double dip, i dropped them quick smart i only watch soccer so i'm watching that online now if i want it live or download a 720p version and watch it when i have the time, the rest of the foxtel shit they can keep, i don't watch movies that are 5 years old and tv shows that are 10 years old, i can buy those from ebay for $50 and have them on my NAS

    as for tv .. i don't watch it unless i decide to watch a game of footy or maybe some news

    most of my viewing is done through my AppleTV or my laptop .... i'd pay $50/month to get what i want adds free, if i can't then i will find ways to get it

    what these morons don't understand is that if there is a will there is a way ... i and my friends used to watch F1 streamed live every 2nd weekend or so for years because chan10 had different plans, now that they have it live we still watch it streamed ...why? no adds or very very limited adds, and those adds are actually relevant and very short unlike chan10

    with soccer it's the same, most my friends watch it streamed, most it's at 1am or so so sitting in bed with my notebook i don't need a huge screen to watch it, my NAS is intelligent enough to get me a 720p version if i want to and watch it the next day

    so the only thing that suits me is what i want not what "they" want
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2011
  19. fredhoon

    fredhoon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,643
    Location:
    Brisbane
    IT News - Canberra mulls a wider safe harbour
    By John Hilvert on Feb 28, 2011 6:49 AM

    While the iiNet Appeal judgment sought concessions in favor of AFACT, it appears (on face value) that the Attorney General is moving in the opposite direction regarding the "broadening of Safe Habour schemes". It will be interesting to see how much influence AFACT has over the second two points as time progresses.
     
  20. andrew_bg

    andrew_bg Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,175
    Location:
    Mount Victoria
    I think that you will find that new safe harbour scheme is worded in such a way that the ISP and other entities that will be covered are ONLY covered if they pass on AFACT notices to infringers and act upon multiple 'offenders'.
    So, in actual fact, the complete opposite of the iinet case.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: