Film companies sue iiNet 'for allowing piracy'

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

  1. stevo4

    stevo4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Why I wouldn't see it being that way.

    It is not up to service providers to police what their customers do.

    Does telstra monitor phone calls for illegal activity?
     
  2. andrew_bg

    andrew_bg Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,175
    Location:
    Mount Victoria
    I am not suggesting that the carriage providers have to police, just that in order to claim immunity under safe harbour provisions, that they would have to show a judge that they have been, what AFACT would consider, playing fair.
     
  3. FiShy

    FiShy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    9,682
    none of the law investigations change the privacy act, so nothing is going to change.

    No they just have to follow the law, privacy trumps copyright.
     
  4. andrew_bg

    andrew_bg Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,175
    Location:
    Mount Victoria
    So how are Excetel and all the other ISP's passing on 'Infringement' notices without a court order or investigation not being sued for privacy breeches?
     
  5. ir0nhide

    ir0nhide Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Adelaide
    AFAIK these providers (also TPG) are known as being ones that are popular with the leeching 'community' due to their high caps and low prices, therefore the operators are more nervous about being targeted by AFACT et al. They pass on the notices to the clients but they don't take further action or supply the clients' details to AFACT, hence no real privacy issue.
     
  6. FiShy

    FiShy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    9,682
    Hey are passing them on to the customer, not providing the details of the ip owner to AFACT, so the emails are a meaning less token of good will.


    You can get 100 a day but no one can get you as afact can't find out your details with out a discovery provided by a court.
     
  7. stevo4

    stevo4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Melbourne
    They should have no obligation to curtail to AFACT's considerations what so ever.
     
  8. andrew_bg

    andrew_bg Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,175
    Location:
    Mount Victoria
    Dont worry about it, you are all missing the point.
    In the context of the Safe Harbour provision, if it *was* changed in the way that has been hinted at by Conroy, they *could* make the only way to claim safe harbour *if* you had been being seen to be pandering to AFACT.
    *not* passing customer details to AFACT, but providing a form of accepting what AFACT says and doing the odd disconnection of the token leecher.

    That was my point, that is all, and it seriously wouldnt surprise me if that is the outcome that Conroy has been sprouting about in the context of the iiNet / AFACT case.
     
  9. stevo4

    stevo4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm not talking about passing details to AFACT.
    I'm am talking about not doing AFACT's bidding.
    i.e. one private organisation buoying up the profits of another, at the expense of its own profits.
     
  10. A_C

    A_C Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,668
    Location:
    5000
    Net pirate ruling may force ISPs to cut off cheats

    http://www.theage.com.au/technology...ce-isps-to-cut-off-cheats-20110301-1bcr4.html

    Even though they lost, they are still claiming a win :lol:
     
  11. stevo4

    stevo4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yes.
    You know that they know they have lost, when they take to scaremongering in the media.
     
  12. bennyg

    bennyg Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,735
    Location:
    Melbourne, Oztraya
    And the implication of that is that's the worst that will happen which totally reassures me :)

    Who cares about being cut off an ISP, they all offer pretty much the same service over a residential ADSL2+, the only possible issue is paying out on a contract. Which is at ABSOLUTE worst a couple of grand (assuming a high cap $100pm 24mo contract) - but can be as low as a few tens if post-contract, compared with what scares most people which is the multimillion dollar cases like the US RIAA ones
     
  13. iSTELTHYi

    iSTELTHYi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,966
    Location:
    Radelaide
    No ISP is going to cut anyone off on an allegation. It would only happen after a long and expensive process of taking people to court and PROVING it ;)
     
  14. stevo4

    stevo4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Melbourne
    If the ISP is the one terminating the contract, then $0.

    You mean the ones where they try to settle out of court beforehand.
    Becuase the only evidence they have is that someone is paying a subscription fee to a ISP.
     
  15. fredhoon

    fredhoon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,643
    Location:
    Brisbane
    More ITNews speculation....

    Analysis: ISPs must sharpen customer agreements
    By Brett Winterford on Mar 4, 2011 6:32 AM

    and older conjecture....
    iiTrial: A green light to disconnect pirates
    By Brett Winterford on Feb 24, 2011 6:04 PM


    On a related topic, has anyone looked into the recently released/leaked ACTA? Does it set a requirement for our Copyright laws to include a "table of pre-determined damages?" as the comment on this Crikey Article suggest? I need to spend some time and read the agreement linked by wikipedia to form my own opinion / interpretation, however I am interested to understand the position that others have made around the implications of ACTA.
     
  16. CAPT-Irrelevant

    CAPT-Irrelevant Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,378
    Location:
    Sydney
    It's now going to the high court.

    http://www.itnews.com.au/News/252242,afact-to-try-taking-iitrial-to-high-court.aspx

     
  17. TRG.dOinK

    TRG.dOinK Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,482
    Location:
    Melb East
    They lost twice, ans want to appeal it again?

    Sigh... how about Channel 7 (which is part of the group) start getting on with what people want, live afl ffs.
     
  18. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    142,228
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    "Online film piracy battle heads to the High Court "

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/busin...o-the-high-court/story-e6frede3-1226114867418

     
  19. mike-s

    mike-s Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,867
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    For Christ sake, the more they make a fuss about it, the more visibility they give it and more people are made aware of it and will potentially do it while they can get away with it. It's just like games or movies being banned from publication in Australia and them then going and buying/torrenting them overseas simply to get to see what the fuss is about, AND stick it to the people that said no.
     
  20. Jimba86

    Jimba86 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,843
    Location:
    Brisbane
    +1

    once people say "dont do this or you cant see that" people want to...

    you can never stop piracy but you can slow it down.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: