http://itnews.com.au/News/167984,analysis-five-ways-afact-lost-the-iinet-case.aspx

The wrong target

The last word should perhaps be left to Justice Cowdroy, who sympathised with the content industry for their battle with online piracy in his judgement, but pointed to their greatest flaw.

“It is unfortunate that the outcome of the Court’s finding is that the applicants will continue to have their copyright infringed,” he said.

“However, the fault lies with the applicants for choosing the wrong respondent.”

These sites offer free patent searching with more data and more features than any other free site, including free PDF downloading, annotating documents, organizing research into folders, sharing documents with other users, and alerts for new documents of interest.

A link to let your users know about the site would be great!

I just would like to say that i believe that it is about time the film industry realises that time for multi-bilion profits is over.

I feel sick with some actors, producers and directors earning millions of dollars for a 3 months shooting. It is because of this expensive bill (and the gready film industry) that the ticket in our local movies costs 20 bucks and the DVDS are equally as expensive.

I believe if they start to pay this people real salaries instead of this ‘dream’ salary and to focus on creating technology that would enable internet users to download the new releases for a couple of bucks on their own websites, they would be in a much better position.

The film industry is fighting against the future. Internet download is the new way, it is the better way and hopefully it will be the chosen way.

For the courts, don’t forget that you are here to protect the population and not the inflated profits a multi-bilion dollars industry.

For the politicians, who is going to be man enough to stand up for the new way of life?

For the population, this is the time to stand up for what is right? until when will we be supporting the film industry and their obcenes salaries???

In layman terms, it is the same pricniple as claiming a Girrafe and and Elephant are the same thing. They are both mammals, two ears, eyes four legs, 1 head, tail, herbavours, live in the same environment, bear live young etc etc – but they are not the same.

Its the taxonomic ranking process.

So to are the P2P/Bit Torrens and other file sharing application formts which are dedicated facilities for the purpose of file sharing. An ISP does alot of the same but is not the same.

In addition, there is case law which distinquishes liability of facilitiating Intellectual Property infringement and providing a process which may have two uses one of which is lawful – this distinction is based on the facts eg: Sony betamax, cassete tapes or university photocopiers.

Hence IInet firstly might consider uncopuling itself from the claim that it is the same as file sharing facility on the basis of fact.

Secondly IINet may wish to bring to life a number of secitons of the copyright act which protects ISPs particualrly given the interpretaion of the legislation on its plain and ordinary meaning.

Thirdly, The fours area of the claim cited ( I think at 58/9 ish area) are easliy unshackled by reference to the facts again including undertking a practicing of disconneting for misuse for safe habouring under the assention of the FTA requirements (and therefore influential US case law too).

Overall remember that file sharing is not illegal – only the unlawufl dealing in another party’s IP is.

I can understand that the claimaint/plaintiff can see that on the principles of the P2P/BitTorrens and other files sharing cases, that a stretch of the these principles, and a strech of the law, may enbale the plaintiff to now rope in ISP’s. We have seen this streeeetching technique used with respect to the copyright act Part IV to accomodate cinemagraphic film to accomodate multimedia and digital technology. However this goes to the Juris or academic thinking of whether the curent law are suffficent to accomodate new technlogies or we need new specific legislation to do so.

On balance, it may be reasoned that this situation will reuqire to much streching of the current law with the consequence of snapping and thus resulting in IINet being succesful.

IInet should not back down on this case as it is an important case for the operation of IP law in Australia.

Go for IInet as all Telco’s, ISP and even Australia Post will fear an outcome in favour of Hollywood.

Ainzy

Illegal activities using any communications industry could mean that individuals known for organising past crimes (no matter how large, everything from organising a bank job to cyber bullying) can loose their connections, this will have very harsh results on those involved.
Consider that if I or a household member was bullied and threatened over the phone by someone else I could press charges against them and if successful effectively have the phone provider stop their connection… ouch!

While I can see that the punishment meets the crime in removing an object that the individual does not have the responsibility to use it appropriately, the result effect on communication could be very detrimental.

ZDNet’s article on this morning’s direction hearing:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/AFACT-must-give-iiNet-more-info/0,130061791,339293870,00.htm

Fun times :)

I’m afraid you won’t get my agreement to the assertion that once something is broadcast, it is put into the commons for whoever to do whatever they like with it. If you do not believe in the copyright system, we aren’t going to agree!

I have paid for cable and free to air TV which includes both vision and audio content (included in my rental agreement, the rights to view programs broadcast one presumes) for the past 25 years.

I did not have the means to record same over that period, but now I wish to have copies of some of the shows I have watched and paid the rights on.

Downloading those from the net – via torrent from individuals globally that had the ability to save same at the time of viewing, am I breaking a copyright law, or am I just activating my right of ownership to the rights purchased from a previous time.

DVR’s are sold globally and in most instances incorporated into most broadcast network set top box’s for this exact purpose, allowing the purchaser of the rights to record & watch at their leisure at another time.

1)
Would not the copyright claimants have to prove that each and every downloaded piece of material by an individual had not been nor never paid for by that individual to claim infringement of their “copyright rights”.

2)
Would not the claimants also have to prove that the individual had not in fact seen that particular show / movie or heard that piece of music on their rented and paid for rights distribution equipment.

3)
Would not the providers of said equipment to record actually be the original sinners as their equipment has been exclusively designed to function as capture / store / disseminate device for the replaying of rights material at some time in the future, claiming the recording media unknown use after manufacture is not plausible as the cable companies, streaming media companies who rent or sell set top boxes design to store the delivered content.

4)
Would not the claimant have to pursue any and all persons whom at the invitation of an individual, sit and watch a prerecorded rights purchased film/movie/opera etc. but had not paid to see or hear that media output under the original individuals rental agreement. (they may not have a cable contract of their own, so they are breaking the “Law”)

The Australian assault by the claimants focused on i*net for the obvious reasons, T*lstra is the government, O*tus has to much cash, so lets beat up on the little guy, drain him financially, and focus on an outcome of being established as the core censor for internet content in/out of Australia, then use that to replicate globally.

Do not forget their is more to their claims than just “potential loss of income” as a reasonable thinking person could join the dots from “inability for industry to control or police a filtering policy” to establishment of an independent, non-judicially overseen censor group.

I am not preaching big brother here, just watching globally how each time this style of legal battle wins for the claimant, the question of whom shall “police” the data stream is asked, oddly, the claimant seems they may have an answer.