iiNet sued for allowing movie piracy

[mcmurray]

Film companies sue iiNet 'for allowing piracy'

Out of the worlds ISP's, why on earth would they start with iiNet?

[The Saint]

Links to page 2 mate ...

Film companies sue iiNet 'for allowing piracy'

[TORQ]

iiNet would appear to have a fairly healthy bank balance would be one reason ...

[delete_me_kthxbai]

Largest target here.
Of course, they wont try sue Telstra. No-one can win against Telstra. short of using a nuke.

[Davey]

ah michael mallone will love that shit

[The Saint]

Adrianne Pecotic, executive director of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), said the action followed a five-month investigation by the industry.

"We identified thousands of infringements of copyright by iiNet's customers ..."

orly? How?

[Pkunk]

ah michael mallone will love that shit

Here here!

"We identified thousands of infringements of copyright by iiNet's customers and we provided iiNet with about 18 separate notices of those infringements and, unfortunately, iiNet did not do anything to address that copyright infringement," she said.

Obviously with such large amounts of evidence against 18 "infringers" the movie companies should no doubt reclaim damages against the individuals for copyright infringement...

Oh wait

hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaahahah

Edit: trying to say the same thing as Mr The Saint

[Nath]

Oh.. sorry guys.. one of them was me...

[Aphex]

It'll be interesting to see the outcome of this. But it why a service provider and not the individuals? It's like suing Telstra for them allowing people to discuss a drug deal on their network.

Meh... it wont stop individuals making "backup" copies of DVD's from Video Ezy....

[Professor Redfern]

IINet dont have a effing clue so they are probably an easy target. I was at a business lunch / panel event a while ago and I asked one of the heads of IINEt a high up dude in chanel 7 and a guy that was one of the heads of netflicks who they intend to survive in a market dominated by piracy and how as the internet gets quicker it will inevitably get worse.

Their answer was to fine people that download crap. He said "see how many people you know continue downloading after some of there friends get fined"

I just sat down and couldnt believe that such idiots got to the top of this feild.

I was just thinking Good work dickheads cos that really worked when they all tried it against napster, obviously that totally stopped internet privacy.

[D'Artagnan]

orly? How?

Easy. Start BitTorrent client, record all seeds and leach IP addresses, ping -a, write letter.

Anyone using BT is open to tracking. BT = bad news...

[The Saint]

Not necessarily 18 infringements. Could be one notice on 3 July identifying 576 separate infringments, one notice on 24 July identifying 433 infringements etc. etc.

[Crumpetman]

I'm honestly of two minds when it comes to piracy of electronic entertainment.

Firstly, I think the way the industry counts the costs of piracy is flawed to begin with. Counting each download as a lost sale is false economy. It's a lost sale if, and only if, that individual had planned on purchasing the album/movie/game and now hasn't. To claim that everyone who downloads something would have purchased it if they couldn't pirate is ridiculous.

On the other hand, piracy is actually theft and companies they have a right to protect their bottom line.

But to get back on topic and stop ranting, I don't think it's an ISP's responsibility to police the use of their bandwidth with regard to copyrighted material and asking them to is setting some dangerous precedent.

Good luck iiNet.

[Pkunk]

Easy. Start BitTorrent client, record all seeds and leach IP addresses, ping -a, write letter.

Anyone using BT is open to tracking. BT = bad news...

Network address translation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the other hand, piracy is actually theft and companies they have a right to protect their bottom line.

Altogether now repeat after me, PIRACY (downloading movies/music off the net) IS NOT THEFT. Piracy is that thing on the sea where you board another vessel and take it over. It seems it must be repeated every single time this issue comes up

What you are describing is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement . Theft is stealing, like breaking into your house and stealing your DVD's. One of those is a criminal case. Another is a civil case. Do you see the difference?

[The Saint]

But it why a service provider and not the individuals?

1. Service provider has assets.
2. My guess: ISP third-party infringement of diffusion right under Copyright Act: Telstra v APRA, Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act.

[Nath]

Network address translation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are still using the public IP of you connection.. how does that help ?

My understanding is copyright holders are required to defend the unauthorised use/misuse of their copyrighted material.. its just stupid procedure and spending of budgets, IInet will be insured against this type of action in the unlikely event they loose.

[Pkunk]

1. Service provider has assets.

That and lack of actual evidence on the part of the individuals (IP addresses presumably not enough )

[lee]

I'm sorry. You can have top gear australia back, I didn't really want to download it anyway.

[Nath]

That and lack of actual evidence on the part of the individuals (IP addresses presumably not enough )

It is.

[Pkunk]

You are still using the public IP of you connection.. how does that help ?

Following the (admittedly) US angle on these things, you are simply saying an IP address is "doing bad things". Obviously anyone could be behind that. How do you file an injunction against someone when all you see is an IP address with lots of users there. Against the company itself? Well the company has done nothing...

Are the "enabling" them? Who knows, im not a lawyer

It is.

BS, got any citation on that?