Australian ISP wins against film studios claiming copyright infringment

Don't know if anyone had heard about this, but it was quite big news here in Australia.

A leading ISP iinet was being sued by a consortium of studios headed by Village Roadshow for not preventing users from downloading illegal copies of copyright material.

Thankfully, they ruled in favour of the ISP, as this is not the sort of precident we would want.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/business/1007995/judge-rules-in-favour-of-iinet

Well, at least some good news from down under; how long before you can get rid of Michael Atkinson?

W3bbo said:

Well, at least some good news from down under; how long before you can get rid of Michael Atkinson?

hehe.. SA state election soon....

hopefully once he's gone we can finally get an R rating on computer games so we don't get lame butchered versions of GTA anymore...

The basic proposition that someone could be compelled to defend some else’s copyright, was always ridiculous.

Of course, it doesn’t change the fact that copyrights are being infringed, but it’s a matter between the copyright holder and the offender, and there are already ample provisions in the law for the former to take action against the latter... gather evidence, accuse, litigate, get a judgement, have a penalty imposed.

The studios simply wanted to get the ISP’s to act as police, judge and executioner... and thought Australia would be an easy way to set a precedence.

They *REALLY* want this, and will almost certainly appeal to the high court, but I reckon they have 2 chances of winning... none and bugger-all.

A detailed article on the reasons behind the ruling if anyones interested.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/studios-crushed-isp-cant-be-forced-to-play-copyright-cop.ars

ISPs should really avoid like-the-devil the role of police. As soon as they go down that path it will never end and the cost of doing so will just sink most ISPs entirely (or make the internet so expensive people cannot access it). Plus slippery slope.

So good win...

PS - What is up with AUS? They're like the UK (insane nanny state banning stuff) on speed. R rated games, porn (in states), "extreme porn," and various other things...

ManipUni said:

ISPs should really avoid like-the-devil the role of police. As soon as they go down that path it will never end and the cost of doing so will just sink most ISPs entirely (or make the internet so expensive people cannot access it). Plus slippery slope.

 

So good win...

PS - What is up with AUS? They're like the UK (insane nanny state banning stuff) on speed. R rated games, porn (in states), "extreme porn," and various other things...

 

 

I dont know, but it sucks balls.

ManipUni said:

ISPs should really avoid like-the-devil the role of police. As soon as they go down that path it will never end and the cost of doing so will just sink most ISPs entirely (or make the internet so expensive people cannot access it). Plus slippery slope.

 

So good win...

PS - What is up with AUS? They're like the UK (insane nanny state banning stuff) on speed. R rated games, porn (in states), "extreme porn," and various other things...

 

 

PS - What is up with AUS? They're like the UK (insane nanny state banning stuff) on speed. R rated games, porn (in states), "extreme porn," and various other things...

That’s not actually correct.

The AUS internet filtering proposal has 2 levels:

1. Illegal material – no opt-out filter
2. Undesirable material – opt-in/out filter

Illegal material is illegal material, plain and simple, and nobody can use “freedom of speech” arguments to counter that. E.g. Child pornography is quite simply illegal.

Undesirable material is that which may not be appropriate for environments such as schools, libraries etc – basically adult porn, violence, etc... however, that’s an optional filter level.

The actual filter itself is not the *REAL* problem with the proposal, but rather it is the way the black-list is maintain that has everyone concerned.

It’s a secret list, supposedly along the “we don’t confirm or deny security procedures” line of thinking, so there is suspicion that it will be used to block material that the govt of the day considers undesirable to its own agenda, or to do deals in parliament.

The other issue, of course, is the big question mark over how to filter torrents and the like, without bringing the net to its knees. Obviously child porn rings don't use standard sites and protocols such as http, so you are not going to gain much benefit in those areas, and it's yet to be shown that deep packet analysis can be handled at sufficiant speed with current equipment.

elmer said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

PS - What is up with AUS? They're like the UK (insane nanny state banning stuff) on speed. R rated games, porn (in states), "extreme porn," and various other things...

 

That’s not actually correct.

 

The AUS internet filtering proposal has 2 levels:

1. Illegal material – no opt-out filter
2. Undesirable material – opt-in/out filter

Illegal material is illegal material, plain and simple, and nobody can use “freedom of speech” arguments to counter that. E.g. Child pornography is quite simply illegal.

 

Undesirable material is that which may not be appropriate for environments such as schools, libraries etc – basically adult porn, violence, etc... however, that’s an optional filter level.

The actual filter itself is not the *REAL* problem with the proposal, but rather it is the way the black-list is maintain that has everyone concerned.

 

It’s a secret list, supposedly along the “we don’t confirm or deny security procedures” line of thinking, so there is suspicion that it will be used to block material that the govt of the day considers undesirable to its own agenda, or to do deals in parliament.

 

The other issue, of course, is the big question mark over how to filter torrents and the like, without bringing the net to its knees. Obviously child porn rings don't use standard sites and protocols such as http, so you are not going to gain much benefit in those areas, and it's yet to be shown that deep packet analysis can be handled at sufficiant speed with current equipment.

The problem with state-mandated filters is how they don't really solve any problems...

• People who are intentionally after that kind of material can get it if they really want to; using a proxy or tunnel service is not the technical challenge it used to be.
• It runs the risk of blocking legitimate (or worse: controversial yet constitutionally/rights protected) websites. Remember the dentist?
• The odds of 'accidentally' coming across material such as this is extremely low
• And there are times when you get false-positives due to bugs in the system (which happened to me at least twice)

The moment you declare you're going to censor something is when anything is at risk. I believe it's easier to say it's immoral to block any and all content than it is to step into the fray and unilaterally declare what material itself is "immoral" and what isn't.

W3bbo said:

elmer said:

*snip*

The problem with state-mandated filters is how they don't really solve any problems...

• People who are intentionally after that kind of material can get it if they really want to; using a proxy or tunnel service is not the technical challenge it used to be.
• It runs the risk of blocking legitimate (or worse: controversial yet constitutionally/rights protected) websites. Remember the dentist?
• The odds of 'accidentally' coming across material such as this is extremely low
• And there are times when you get false-positives due to bugs in the system (which happened to me at least twice)

The moment you declare you're going to censor something is when anything is at risk. I believe it's easier to say it's immoral to block any and all content than it is to step into the fray and unilaterally declare what material itself is "immoral" and what isn't.

Yes, I agree with most of that, and I’m certainly not arguing a case for censorship or trying to be an apologist for the Govt/Conroy.

However, many of the claims made about the proposal, and the subsequent perceptions held, are based on misinformation, and I believe that the only way you can wage an effective campaign against something, is if you know he facts and base your arguments on them.

The only point I would make is that the proposed mandatory filters don't actually set out to make "morality" judgments, and only propose to filter "illegal" material... i.e. stuff that you would otherwise be arrested and penalised for if found in possession of.

However, as you say, the effectiveness is so questionable, that it's hard to see how it's going to be anything more than an appeasement of the wowser groups... and it's such a slippery slope to be stepping on to, that you really have to ask if we should be going there at all.

elmer said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Yes, I agree with most of that, and I’m certainly not arguing a case for censorship or trying to be an apologist for the Govt/Conroy.

 

However, many of the claims made about the proposal, and the subsequent perceptions held, are based on misinformation, and I believe that the only way you can wage an effective campaign against something, is if you know he facts and base your arguments on them.

 

The only point I would make is that the proposed mandatory filters don't actually set out to make "morality" judgments, and only propose to filter "illegal" material... i.e. stuff that you would otherwise be arrested and penalised for if found in possession of.

 

However, as you say, the effectiveness is so questionable, that it's hard to see how it's going to be anything more than an appeasement of the wowser groups... and it's such a slippery slope to be stepping on to, that you really have to ask if we should be going there at all.

I don't personally support any form of prior restraint on speech, regardless of it's legal status.

Bass said:

elmer said:

*snip*

I don't personally support any form of prior restraint on speech, regardless of it's legal status.

I argue that it shouldn't be illegal to posses "child pornography" because the difference between pornography and factual photographs is in the intent of the creator, which isn't always possible to determine. Should baby powder or nappy adverts be illegal because they show naked children in detail? Our government recently ruled lolicon illegal too, but at what point does an illustration become titilating?

Another issue with these kinds of "strict liability" offenses is that it makes it easier to smear someone: if you don't like someone you can easily enough manufacturer fake evidence on someone's computer that makes it look like they view that kind of stuff on a regular basis. Your victim's word against that of a computer forensics expert is not going to sway over a jury.

I'll also hop on to the 'slippery slope' argument too: lolicon is fake, no dispute there, yet it was still banned under the premise of protecting children on the weak assumption that the people who fap off to that stuff would use it as some kind of gateway substance onto abusing real children. I've argued before that they're on the road to banning things like furry porn because it might protect real animals from sexual abuse. I ask at what point "character art" becomes erotic and a risk to animals? What about going a step away a bit and targeting manga cat-girls? Or just regular manga human characters with cat ears and tails? Then Playboy bunnies?

I can draw two stick figures having sex and label one a prepubescent child, am I guilty of producing simulated child pornography?

W3bbo said:

Bass said:

*snip*

I argue that it shouldn't be illegal to posses "child pornography" because the difference between pornography and factual photographs is in the intent of the creator, which isn't always possible to determine. Should baby powder or nappy adverts be illegal because they show naked children in detail? Our government recently ruled lolicon illegal too, but at what point does an illustration become titilating?

 

Another issue with these kinds of "strict liability" offenses is that it makes it easier to smear someone: if you don't like someone you can easily enough manufacturer fake evidence on someone's computer that makes it look like they view that kind of stuff on a regular basis. Your victim's word against that of a computer forensics expert is not going to sway over a jury.

 

I'll also hop on to the 'slippery slope' argument too: lolicon is fake, no dispute there, yet it was still banned under the premise of protecting children on the weak assumption that the people who fap off to that stuff would use it as some kind of gateway substance onto abusing real children. I've argued before that they're on the road to banning things like furry porn because it might protect real animals from sexual abuse. I ask at what point "character art" becomes erotic and a risk to animals? What about going a step away a bit and targeting manga cat-girls? Or just regular manga human characters with cat ears and tails? Then Playboy bunnies?

 

I can draw two stick figures having sex and label one a prepubescent child, am I guilty of producing simulated child pornography?

Too bad Men at Work did not also successfully defend themselves in the lawsuit brought against them.

Bryan Baldwin said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Too bad Men at Work did not also successfully defend themselves in the lawsuit brought against them.

Uhm, Men at Work's lawsuit over the flute tune has nothing to do with child porn

(unless they're doing something unspeakable with the flute?)

I assume you're refering to the OP's topic, which is a totally different matter. MaW's copyright infringement was their responsibility, and I don't believe Australia has anything resembling a Fair Use defence.

W3bbo said:

Bryan Baldwin said:

*snip*

Uhm, Men at Work's lawsuit over the flute tune has nothing to do with child porn

 

(unless they're doing something unspeakable with the flute?)

 

I assume you're refering to the OP's topic, which is a totally different matter. MaW's copyright infringement was their responsibility, and I don't believe Australia has anything resembling a Fair Use defence.

In relational terms, my comment joins to the original post by "Austrailian Lawsuits in recent events", not by the laws concerned or the rightness or wrongness of their outcomes. The MaW case may well have been driven by the letter of the law, and may only seem silly to me. 

W3bbo said:

Bryan Baldwin said:

*snip*

Uhm, Men at Work's lawsuit over the flute tune has nothing to do with child porn

 

(unless they're doing something unspeakable with the flute?)

 

I assume you're refering to the OP's topic, which is a totally different matter. MaW's copyright infringement was their responsibility, and I don't believe Australia has anything resembling a Fair Use defence.

Actually, the MaW case is probably more relevent to the original topic than is internet filtering.

It’s an example of a copyright holder defending their own copyright, and winning... perhaps a lesson for the studios to pay attention to.

Of course, whether or not it was a sensible decision is another matter, and personally I’m really hard pressed to see the resemblance in the main flute riff and the “Kookaburra” tune I sang in kindergarten.

elmer said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Actually, the MaW case is probably more relevent to the original topic than is internet filtering.

 

It’s an example of a copyright holder defending their own copyright, and winning... perhaps a lesson for the studios to pay attention to.

 

Of course, whether or not it was a sensible decision is another matter, and personally I’m really hard pressed to see the resemblance in the main flute riff and the “Kookaburra” tune I sang in kindergarten.

Question: why in this day and age must the record companies take the copyright of songs away from the artists? I don't see how a music publisher's job is any different to a game publisher, yet games publishers just manage publishing and marketing, the game studios retain all the rights, including the right to change to a different publisher.

I hear RIAA labels still charge artists for "breakage"even though the industry stopped using brittle LPs over 60 years ago.

elmer said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Actually, the MaW case is probably more relevent to the original topic than is internet filtering.

 

It’s an example of a copyright holder defending their own copyright, and winning... perhaps a lesson for the studios to pay attention to.

 

Of course, whether or not it was a sensible decision is another matter, and personally I’m really hard pressed to see the resemblance in the main flute riff and the “Kookaburra” tune I sang in kindergarten.

I saw it on 3 news last night where they played it (MaW and Kukkaburra) side by side and by ear alone I couldn't tell how it was the same.  Conversely, I can't actually tell the difference between the songs Lust for Life by Iggy Pop and Are You Gonna Be My Girl? by Jet.  In fact I believe there is even a third uniquely titled song by an unrelated performer that is very much the same as the other two.

If it happened it wouldn't surprise me, but I wouldn't cheer if there were lawsuits there either.