In a definitive defeat for film studios—and in a first case of its kind worldwide—Australia's Federal Court has ruled that ISPs have no obligation to act on copyright infringement notices or to disconnect subscribers after receiving multiple letters. If copyright holders want justice for illegal file-sharing, they need to start by targeting the right people: those who committed the infringement.
From: AussieGeoff [#3] 4 Feb 16:02 To: BigK (WARLOK29) [#1] 4 Feb 21:00
G'Day
Justice Cowdroy's written decision may be long winded, but it does cover as many possibilities as he can think of which is good. AFACT can appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court and then the High Court (our US Supreme court if you like), but according to a lawyer friend of mine Cowdroy's decisions rarely get overturned because he is so thorough!
I suspect AFACT will try to strong arm parliament to change the law but they are having plenty of trouble trying to get their Carbon Trading Scheme (they have just introduced it for the third time to try and get it through) and Conroy's (the Minister for Communications) plan to censure the internet through and a few other items so I think that if this law is to changed it will go straight onto the back burner for consideration sometime in the problematic future.
I noticed that AFACT took on the 3rd biggest ISP in Oz, I wonder why they did not take on Telstra Bigpond or OptusNet (the two biggest in order), both of them have far more money than iinet.
From: BigK (WARLOK29) [#7] 4 Feb 21:05 To: AussieGeoff [#3] 4 Feb 21:19
quote:
... but according to a lawyer friend of mine Cowdroy's decisions rarely get overturned because he is so thorough!
Good to know that his decisions can be put to the test and come out still standing. That's not always the case on this side of the globe, unfortunately.
quote:
I wonder why they did not take on Telstra Bigpond or OptusNet (the two biggest in order), both of them have far more money than iinet.
Rhetorical or not, you've answered your own question.
Finally a court that is not in the pocket of Big Content.
Well, we don't really know how the Supreme Court here in the U.S. would respond to such a case since IIRC it never has been tried. All we know is that a boatload of politicians are in the *AAs' pockets and that civil court judges let the **AAs' extortion fly. But that's not the Supreme Court.
From: IMNOTDRPHIL [#12] 22 Feb 18:52 To: worsel [#11] 23 Feb 3:29
Don't kid yourself- political offices have been for sale for a long time. This ruling just brings some of the formerly mostly under the table stuff out in the open.
From: worsel [#13] 23 Feb 3:36 To: IMNOTDRPHIL [#12] 23 Feb 13:41
Please note the word "LEGALIZE" in my previous post. It means the Justices did more than just bring it out in the open. Henceforth the sale of political offices is allowed and permitted and no longer subject to criminal prosecution.
From: IMNOTDRPHIL [#14] 23 Feb 13:47 To: worsel [#13] 24 Feb 8:19
It was legal to donate as much money you wanted to for political purposes, it just had to be done indirectly through things like the 527 groups "unofficially" linked with a candidate. Sure, those groups couldn't endorse a particular candidate, but they could certainly run negative attack ads against the opposition. Considering most political ads are attack ads, you got the same effect in contributing to an outside-the-Federal Election Commission-control 527 group as you did in contributing directly to a candidate or regulated Political Action Committee. You could also contribute unlimited amounts to national political parties ("soft money") since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 established this was separate from contributing to a specific candidate, and was therefore not regulated by the FEC.
So like I said before, nothing really changes with the SCOTUS suit about campaign financing.
Malone: Appeal won't stop piracy
By Liam Tung, ZDNet.com.au
25 February 2010 01:43 PM
Tags: afact, copyright, federal court, iinet, safe harbour, malone, appeal
iiNet managing director Michael Malone has said he's disappointed that the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has decided to appeal the Federal Court's decision in the recent copyright court case.
"It is more than disappointing and frustrating that the studios have chosen this unproductive path," Malone said. "This legal case has not stopped one illegal download and further legal appeals will not stop piracy."
AFACT today lodged a notice of appeal in the Federal Court, which has included its 15 grounds for appeal, expected to be heard by three Federal Court judges at some stage this year. If AFACT wins that appeal the matter may be appealed by iiNet at the High Court.
From: Cagey (KGWAGNER) [#16] 25 Feb 15:29 To: AussieGeoff [#15] 25 Feb 16:31
I don't know what the members of AFACT are waiting for. They need to change their business model, and that's all there is to it. No amount of arguing, fighting, lawsuits, legislation, whining or crying is going to change the fact that music is no longer a scarce good, and they can't charge exorbitant prices for it or limit its use. They had us over a barrel for a long time, and it was fun for them while it lasted, but those days are permanently over with and will never return. The sooner they get their heads out of their asses and adjust to that reality, the better off they'll be.
I'm not saying they have to give things away, but they don't have to act like there are tons of sunk costs in production/marketing/distribution. That's largely gone in the digital age. There's no reason for songs to cost even the $.99 Apple charges, let alone what the various rapists would like to charge.
A few years back when MP3Sparks was running, it was amazing how just on these forums dozens of people went from buying little or no music at all to buying dozens or even hundreds of songs, sometimes even complete collections by artists they liked. The price was right, the format was right, the selection was huge, the mechanics were convenient - it was perfect! Can you imagine if the entire world knew about that site? They'd have had to install computers that would make the military jealous just to keep up with demand. Could have made billions.
From: Cagey (KGWAGNER) [#18] 25 Feb 19:19 To: leonsk [#17] 25 Feb 20:10
Same here. I really wish I'd gone a little more crazy when I had the chance. Should've bought everything I recognized whether I loved it or not, just so I'd have it now.
CTA, short for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is an all-reaching proposal that may represent an epic victory for the film and music industries in their fight against piracy, a victory that comes at the high expense of citizens' privacy and rights, if it is upheld.
From: Cagey (KGWAGNER) [#20] 26 Feb 16:56 To: BigK (WARLOK29) [#19] 3 Aug 14:34
This has been going on for a while now. Couple years, at least. Epic piece of bad government work. When cornered, its adherents say it doesn't mean that much, that it will be an "agreement", not a law, and so on in an effort to disarm its detractors. But, if it's so toothless and won't change anything, why is it wrapped in Manhattan Project style secrecy? And why is it being crafted outside normal governmental channels? If it's "for our own good", why can't we know about its provisions? The answer is simple. It's not toothless, it'll change a lot, normal due process would have killed it long ago, it doesn't do the people any good, and we'd know that immediately if we were privy to the details.