Film companies sue iiNet (Australian ISP) 'for allowing piracy'

[admin]

The Australian film and television industry has launched a major legal action against one of Australia's largest internet service providers for allegedly allowing its users to download pirated movies and TV shows.

The action against iiNet was filed in the Federal Court today by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Disney and the Seven Network.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/iinet-sued-for-allowing-piracy/2008/11/20/1226770617457.html

[blutach]

Isn't that your ISP admin?

Funny how they go after the little guys. Why not Telstra or Optus? Perhaps because Telstra and Optus would defend the suit to the hilt and cost the little AFI a shirtload of money in launching the action - more than it is worth.

Regards

[admin]

I switched to Internode some time ago. The new strategy from the MPAA-led coalition is to force ISPs to become copyright cops.

[drfsupercenter]

Good thing ISPs like Verizon and WideOpenWest won't cave in... that's just the sort of privacy invasions that people should be concerned about.

[admin]

Some more on this:

AFACT v iiNet: the case that could shut down the Internet

[blutach]

When did I become my brother's (or my customers') keeper iinet will ask?

The court fight will revolve around Particular 63 which alleges that iiNet knew copyright breaches were going on (by its customers) but did nothing to prevent copyright infringements.

They do not encourage their customers to break the law; in fact, their terms and conditions of use mandate that users do not do so.

Surely the plaintiffs' correct action is to obtain orders from the Court for iinet to discontinue service to the actual customers who are breaching copyright via the Internet. But that would be waaaaaaay too expensive for the studios and Channel 7 to prosecute every single case, so they go after the "wholesaler".

And what about this piece of idiocy?

Where material is being cached temporarily through an ISP’s network then they have reproduction occurring even if they are not aware of it (blu's emphasis)

And if you aren't aware of it, how can you be guilty? There is no intent to do wrong. So, what then is the remedy? How is the damage (assuming there is damage) stopped? To shut off all P2P connections? Impossible. Or is AFACT just looking for some money? If so, it would seem the way people and companies manipulate the US legal system for monetary gain has arrived here. How sad is that?

Hope the plaintiffs get torn a new one (legally speaking of course).

Regards