Hopefully rights holders will now focus on the big three � availability, flexibility and affordability. Fix those things and piracy becomes a thing of the past just like it pretty much is in the US.
Very well put.
Hopefully rights holders will now focus on the big three � availability, flexibility and affordability. Fix those things and piracy becomes a thing of the past just like it pretty much is in the US.
Thanks, agree completely
It will be interesting to see how this pans out over time , but it looks like some good news and thanks to those isp's that put their money into fighting this.
I know this is simplistic, but has this decision given the green light to "illegal" downloads
Not at all!
if anything Perram acknowledges in his judgement that there is no question/doubt that copyright infringement has occurred and that rightholders/DBC are entitled to be made whole again.
having said this what Perram has done is made it very clear that the type of extortion that he has referenced has happened in similar cases in the U.K, Canada and U.S wont be permitted to happen here and that Right holders and their legal representatives need to be acting in an ethical and moral way.
i have little doubt that at the commencement of this case Perram would have had a very sympathetic ear towards DBC, but they were there own worst enemy in this case in there approach, language and agenda obviously opened up Perrams eyes that this case wasn't about combating piracy but more about creating another revenue stream.
Perram was clearly left unimpressed after giving DBC ample time and opportunity to produce what dollar amount they would be seeking, and a letter that would be reasonable and legally ethical.
if anything Perram acknowledges in his judgement that there is no question/doubt that copyright infringement has occurred and that rightholders/DBC are entitled to be made whole again.
Bingo
Bingo
problem with DBC is that they were clearly looking to turn this into a very profitable revenue stream. Courts aren't there for this purpose.
Perram was clearly left unimpressed after giving DBC ample time and opportunity to produce what dollar amount they would be seeking, and a letter that would be reasonable and legally ethical.
Exactly....their greed got the better of them in this case.
Reads to me like, if they had been reasonable and gone after the cost of purchasing a copy of the movie and each subsequently seeded copy, he probably would have ok'd it and I personally figure that is reasonable as well......but no, they went for punitive damages as well, the greedy $%#%ers
No sympathy whatsoever for them tbh.
Well now that this is all over - tonight I will sit down and watch DBC on netflix.
With a big bag of popcorn and a beer or three.
Haven't seen it yet, hope it was worth the wait.......
Cheers Voltage and DBC, enjoy !!
Well, DBC etc did achieve one thing: I know a lot of my friends and relos stopped torrenting and now use Netflix, Hulu etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't reasonably widespread.
I daresay it is. I kind of love that Foxtel, Village Roadshow etc, make such a big song and dance over "piracy" being the reason they don't make money � and so people are stopping piracy, and turning to affordable legal services instead. The reason the big guys don't make cash is because they overcharge.
Great news that Perram threw the case out � as the press release quoted states, he was well aware there is nothing he could do to stop them ignoring him. So now that's settled. The bond was a great idea, but throwing the case out is even better.
Glad to see some common sense in the law!
Great news that Perram threw the case out
He didn't throw the case out, they can still send letters provided they pay the bond - and only charge for one copy of the movie plus (a resonable share of) cost of getting customer information. He didn't like the potential for speculative invoicing so rejected their letters, he didn't throw it out.
Great news that Perram threw the case out
the case hasnt been thrown out - the case has been stayed pending if DBC pay the $600k and withdraw 2 out of the 4 type of damages they were going to claim.
case still very much on the table with a slight pulse albeit Perrams ruling today has put a major dent in the business practice DBC and its law firm were looking to employ.
"piracy" being the reason they don't make money
The reason the big guys don't make cash is because they overcharge.
Actually, despite what they say, these companies actually make a fortune. Their profits are staggering and growing every single year.
Their cry poor antics don't stack up when you look at their annual reports.
Re throwing the case out - whoops, my mistake. Still, the bond is a pretty good solution to enforce something he can't enforce :)
Actually, despite what they say, these companies actually make a fortune. Their profits are staggering and growing every single year.
Sure, but that's not how they tell it!
But what I meant to say; the reason people pirate rather than use their services (and now subscribe to VOD instead of using their services)... is because they overcharge.
So as I read it, DBC could now:
a) appeal the decision
b) accept the decision and not bother pursuing this in Australia any further
c) accept the decision, outline the exact dollar amount to the judge that they intend to pursue for the cost of the film and how much it cost to obtain the alleged infringer's name(which would most likely amount to less than $100 dollars from each individual), pay the 600k bond to actually get the name, and then send a letter for the amount specified. if they sent out a letter asking for more money than agreed, they would lose their 600k and most likely have any case thrown out in the process (not that it would ever come to an actual case anyways)
Is that about the state of things as it stands?
Is that about the state of things as it stands?
Yep but it's important to note that the recipients of said letters can throw them in the bin and do nothing. DBC would have to take them to court to actually get any money out of them.
Yep but it's important to note that the recipients of said letters can throw them in the bin and do nothing. DBC would have to take them to court to actually get any money out of them.
which Perram indicated would be futile
a) appeal the decision
From the Federal Court Website:
For an appeal to succeed a party must convince the Court that the Judge that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned. Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case:
-applied an incorrect principle of law; or
-made a finding of fact or facts on an important issue which could not be supported by the evidence.
The Court hearing the appeal:
-does not consider any new evidence or information that was not presented in the original case (except in special circumstances);
-does not call witnesses to give evidence;
-does read all the relevant documents filed by the parties for the original case;
-does read the relevant parts of the transcript of the original case, if available;
-does listen to legal argument from both parties to the appeal.
right. chucking them in the bin is obviously the best method, but if DBC did decide to take it to court, all they could hope to get is $100 dollars or so. meaning they would never do it.
and sounds like an appeal may not be likely then.
oh well, sounds like the good ship DBC will soon be setting sail for another country to park its speculative invoicing sail.
From the Federal Court Website:
I'm not a lawyer but I can't really see them pulling off a successful appeal.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2
Seems things aren't going to be made too easy for them.
EDIT: Apologies - a different article stating the same thing was posted earlier. I missed it!
actually as you are the payer of the service you would have to provide it was an un-known wifi user as you are responsible for what happens on your connection if you are the bill payer....
i believe it is in the AT&C of your internet contract.
Oh goodness gracious.. at least read the thread prior to contributing.. this has been done to death a number of times now.
actually as you are the payer of the service you would have to provide it was an un-known wifi user as you are responsible for what happens on your connection if you are the bill payer....
i believe it is in the AT&C of your internet contract.
This statement is completely false. You are not and cannot be held responsible for someone else's behaviour whilst using your internet account.
Absolutely stoked with the result. I have been watching the case closely and had doubts about Perrams judgement (copyright over privacy). He has however come down with a righteous hand on those who sort to extort Australians, and ultimately shown sound judgement in stymieing their wicked ways. I imagine many Aussies will never purchase another Voltage production on the basis of their appalling tactics and foul reputation. Their greed and insolence was shown up today and we all share in a laugh at their expense.
If they had just been honest in their intentions they may have been successful. Australians want to do the right thing, and services like Netflix have made a welcome and exciting addition to my house. Bring on accessible content for affordable prices, the market will respond..
Congratulations DBC downloaders. Your punishment is fitting, that being any concern or stress about the outcome. It seems entirely reasonable to me. And now you would have changed your ways to protect yourself in the future, whatever you chose to do.
Bring on accessible content for affordable prices, the market will respond..
It really is such a simple solution, and Netflix has shown that in its popularity, but the next step is to enable people to access the new release market in the same way. The cost of delivering a new release via the internet needs to be significantly cheaper than buying or hiring in a store, the fact that it has not got the same manufacturing costs as a disk should be reason enough to be able a offer a very reduced price.
I have lost count how many times I have read about great solutions to fix the situation , but I am sure like so many that if you make it a reasonable price for an all you can eat service then they will smash it in profits for the convenience of it.
It really is such a simple solution, and Netflix has shown that in its popularity,
Netflix is rubbish for people like me who never tolerated pay tv, and just ate what they were given. Nothing I want to watch is ever on netflix. But you latter address the possibility of viewing movies or tv shows shortly after release for a reasonable price. That's what should happen. When the film leaves the cinema have it available for streaming.
If they managed to get $50.00 from 5000 users that only amounts to $250,000.
Ah I thought you get the bond back as long as you don't break the rules.
Maybe I'm wrong I'll read up on it.
I am not a DBC letter recipient, and I was not a torrent downloader. But I did read the judgement.
It didn't say that only the a) and d) costs could be borne by the offenders. It said that the PROPOSED b) and c) costs would not be entertained. He did not say DBC had to expose their bottom line settlement, he rejected an open speculative letter.
The judge was quite careful to say nothing about other models of the b) and c) components, nor to deny they were entitled to their day in court, nor did he deny that there very probably was an appropriate punitive quality to any settlement, nor did he deny that they were entitled to keep the details of their proposed settlement secret.
So having declared a licence-fee-per-offendor model out of court (sorry) -This begs questions:
is a licence-fee-across-all-offendors now also untenable? I don't think so. I think if DBC came back and said "all 4700 of you collectively owe us $US1,000,000" the judge would have had to say a different thing. Not individually, collectively.
And, having humorously knocked on the head some of the DBC assumptions, the Judge leaves entirely open OTHER models for the b) and c) class payment.
So no. IMNSHO Its not going to simply go down to a rental cost and a share of lawyer costs. its going to have some other model for punitive damages, and other associated recovery of lost income.
Oh: that $600,000 bond? Thats nothing. If we assume (and its not unreasonable from past practice for offences of this kind here, and overseas) that a final per-offender payment lies north of $1000 then this bond is safely covered, and any speculative legal funding source would consider funding DBC on the merits of the potential profit for recovery of say $4,700,000 against that investment. If we assume costs to spend receiving the funds are contained under eg double the bond,Then if the return on investment was only DOUBLE the spend, I suspect somebody would fund it. Anything north of $250 per letter-recipient is potentially profitable.
Starting to look like a DBC pyrrhic victory.
It may have scared a decent percentage people off piracy .... those without the technical nouse to get a VPN.
But I wouldn't count DBC out right now. I'm sure they are finding a back window to crawl in through.
Yep but it's important to note that the recipients of said letters can throw them in the bin and do nothing. DBC would have to take them to court to actually get any money out of them.
On a side note, the defence of "someone else used my wifi" got a whole lot stronger with the introduction of Windows 10 and those default privacy settings. Unless you change the default settings "friends"* can just rock on by you house, get access to your interwebz simply because of the passive sharing of your wifi credentials. It has no bearing on this ruling, but it has bearing on rulings that may come.
.* From what I've been told, this also includes Facebook friends and other people you probably don't even know.
Oh: that $600,000 bond? Thats nothing.
One mistake and they lost that bond, and you still think that's nothing?
payment lies north of $1000 then this bond is safely covered
Isn't this speculative invoicing in the first place? The cost of the movie and cost of contacting the alleged infringers should be less than $100.
You will also need to take into account that most peoples contacted by mail will probably throw the letter in the bin.
So what does this mean for the Strike and Meta-Data Laws that are suppose to be coming?
One mistake and they lost that bond, and you still think that's nothing?
Well if they do their homework right (and remember, the costs they incur doing this, is recoverable in the d) bucket) with the judge, they won't make a mistake. right? Thats the deal: be up-front with the judge (who reserved all returns to court to his docket, as I read it) and you can avoid losing this bond.
Isn't this speculative invoicing in the first place? The cost of the movie and cost of contacting the alleged infringers should be less than $100.
They probably have some wiggle room between an open ended letter, and a flat statement of terms at a fixed rate. Eg if they said "you may be exposed to costs in excess of $5000, based on our understanding with the Judge in the likely penalty should this individual case come to court" and not be speculative. They might still settle for $1000, but if they set a limit on the upper side I believe they would not be speculative invoicing. The current (proposed) letter clearly didn't do that, the Judge said that he was told in confidence what their ceiling was, and it was big, but he understood why they couldn't say it, or say how low they'd go: thats a negotiating point. But somewhere in this, will be a wording which satisfies the judge.
You will also need to take into account that most peoples contacted by mail will probably throw the letter in the bin.
Yes. And its possible they wind up with Prushka or some other debt mob on their tail in 2-3 years time, if DBC play their cards right and get summary justice outcomes at a fixed cost.
sucks. IPR is a mess. we need better outcomes, and this Judge is funny, and understands the problem space but he's a servant of the law too, and the law says what people did is wrong.
and the law says what people did is wrong.
and the laws also says that what DBC is trying to do is wrong.
They might still settle for $1000, but if they set a limit on the upper side I believe they would not be speculative invoicing.
It's still a speculative invoicing, they are making unreasonable, unsubstantiated demands from someone (who might not be guilty in the first place) with the threat of potential court action.
And its possible they wind up with Prushka or some other debt mob on their tail in 2-3 years time
Rubbish.
The only way that could possibly happen is if DBC LLC commence legal action against an individual and that individual is served with documents relating to a court hearing that they then subsequently ignore and do not attend court and the court finds in favour of DBC LLC.
If the stay is lifted in the future by Justice Perram and DBC LLC then send out letters of demand to the alleged infringer's those letters can still be ignored if the recipient so chooses as the letter is still only a letter of demand requesting the recipient enter into private negotiations to reach an agreement outside of a court case. No different than me dropping a letter in your letter box asking you to pay me a sum of money or I will take you to court to attempt to sue you. The letter sent from DBC LLC has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever and ignoring it will not result in a debt collection agency chasing anyone. The hysteria is strong in your post....
So what does this mean for the Strike and Meta-Data Laws that are suppose to be coming?
Nothing.....
Love the people on here who think it isn't all done and dusted.
For Voltage and DBC it is finished.
Its a mine field now and a wrong step it will all blow up in their faces.
Easier money to be made else where.
If they managed to get $50.00 from 5000 users that only amounts to $250,000.
Gee, I thought $30 was a ripp off for BluRay. what do you get for $50?
Seriously,if they ask you to pay, and you want to, i'd look for the cheapest copy that has been sold since it came out. Ideally $5, but we purchased a whole stack of another movie at$12.50c for last years Christmas Presents, so that is probably a good offer.
The other part is "cost to get your details", which should be less than that.
BTW, it's nit the Judge making the decisions on the other two parts, but precedence in Australian Law that got them scrapped. DB should be having a good talk to their Australian legal team if they, legal team, told them those claims would fly.
The judge was quite careful to say nothing about other models of the b) and c) components, nor to deny they were entitled to their day in court, nor did he deny that there very probably was an appropriate punitive quality to any settlement,
You need to look at what damages are allowed under Australian law. Hint, they have to be real and actual.
I propose that all the people who did hand over their hard earned money to go and watch the film, or rent it, put together a class action against DBC, for failing to provide the service as advertised. Namely, quality (or even adequate) entertainment.
The film was crap.
The overpaid and overweight executives at DBC ought to be held accountable for charging people money for this patently substandard product.
Honestly who would pay if they did go down that road though?
iiNet supplied legal advice will be not to pay meaning Voltage would have to go to court.
My understanding is Judge Perram will hear any case that attempts this tactic, thus it will fail.
So they would lose their $600k bond and not reap any of the proposed monetary reward.
Fiscal suicide.
What component within the judgement leads you to interpret that dbc will be allowed to ask for $2500?
The judge ruled quiet strongly that they will only be allowed to seek compensation for the cost of a copy of the film $25 at most and a proportion of the legal fees, probably $80-100 per person.
I fail to see your reasoning behind the theory they will be allowed to ask for $2500 in the settlement letter.
I really think you are missing my point.
I cannot see how your calculation of $600k divided by 4800 has anything to do with anything. My guess is that the $600k figure is derived from a calculation somewhat similar to what I proposed.
Once DBC have the account details they can harrass people for whatever amount they feel like and the judge has no jurisdiction to stop them. The $600k is there as a disincentive to try and stop them from taking this approach. DBC could also just write the $600k off and simply double their settlement claim. But that's very risky because very few people would blindly stump up that much cash.
Honestly who would pay if they did go down that road though?
iiNet supplied legal advice will be not to pay meaning Voltage would have to go to court.
My understanding is Judge Perram will hear any case that attempts this tactic, thus it will fail.
So they would lose their $600k bond and not reap any of the proposed monetary reward.
Fiscal suicide.
You would hope nobody, especially since this has got so much publicity, however I think all the scams that successfully fleece people have proved there is a certain % that will fall for it.
Yeah I probably misunderstood your initial point.
Agree that if dbc go outside Perrams orders then not only will they lose the $600k bond but they will also be in breach of a court order. People receiving letters that fall outside the scope should throw it in the bin as they won't be taking anyone to court because they have breached Perrams orders especially seeing as he has ruled he will be the judge for any case brought forward by dbc.
I fail to see your reasoning behind the theory they will be allowed to ask for $2500 in the settlement letter.
Something to do with the bond amount but doesn't make any sense. The bond is there to keep the lawyers honest. If there is a case of speculative invoicing they lose the bond.
Once DBC have the account details they can harrass people for whatever amount they feel like and the judge has no jurisdiction to stop them. The $600k is there as a disincentive to try and stop them from taking this approach. DBC could also just write the $600k off and simply double their settlement claim.
This makes no sense though.
As I stated above...
iiNet supplied legal advice will be not to pay meaning Voltage would have to go to court.
My understanding is Judge Perram will hear any case that attempts this tactic, thus it will fail.
So they would lose their $600k bond and not reap any of the proposed monetary reward.
Fiscal suicide.
They'd just be pouring more money down the drain...
You would hope nobody, especially since this has got so much publicity, however I think all the scams that successfully fleece people have proved there is a certain % that will fall for it.
Not enough people will fall for it to cover the loss of a $600k bond though... not remotely close.
Thus the tactic is completely unfeasible.
As I stated above...
And see the response I've already posted agreeing with you?
Thus the tactic is completely unfeasible.
And I agree with this too. Outflanked in a great move by Perram. I'm not writing DBC off completely though. Although unlikely they may plow ahead through sheer bloody mindedness.
The judge won't allow them to seek this kind of settlement.
Justice has already ruled that damages that they can have reasonable claims to is the purchase price of the movie and a proportionate percentage to their legal expense for discovery ( iiNet have to pay 75% of this).
Various Legal firms have stipulated DBC's Legal costs were in the vicinity of 200K. Minus iiNets 75% loading leaves them with 50k in costs add to this the copy price of a single DVD (which the judge has said in his ruling would in effect when pushed be reduced down to a rental fee) equal (50k/4700)+10 = $20.60
You can add some further costs here and there with the sending of the letter and so on. Now allow another $20 and come up with a grand total of $40.
The lawyers take half and DBC receive $20Au then convert to US and you have zippity duda.
And see the response I've already posted agreeing with you?
Seen and responded to... we agree Voltage are done and dusted in Aus.
Once DBC have the account details they can harrass people for whatever amount they feel like and the judge has no jurisdiction to stop them.
Actually the judge will, he is australias legal representative, DBC cannot deal directly with people as he has already stated
Actually the judge will, he is australias legal representative, DBC cannot deal directly with people as he has already stated
Quoted from the judgement:
Because DBC has no presence in Australia the Court is unable to punish it for contempt if it fails to honour that undertaking.
dbc may just abandon their pursuits now, no financial gain for them
You can add some further costs here and there with the sending of the letter and so on.
There's also the costs for the ISPs to undertake the data matching to link the IPs to the account holders. Perram has yet to make a ruling on this, and I suspect the ISPs would ask for a further bond to cover these costs.
You would hope nobody, especially since this has got so much publicity, however I think all the scams that successfully fleece people have proved there is a certain % that will fall for it.
I think I read that iiNet will be contacting all affected users, so I am assuming those affected will know to expect a letter well before it arrives and I guess they will advise in that contact about and negotiated pro-bono legal advice available so I think that the pay up % will likely be 0% ;)
Sure glad I didn't download this movie � Not even going to watch it on Netflix out of principle now. We need a list of Voltage films so we know what to boycott. Maybe a facebook page to share would be good and bring awareness to the masses.
We need a list of Voltage films so we know what to boycott.
2008 - The Hurt Locker
2009 - A Dangerous Man
2010 - The Traveler
2010 - The Whistleblower
2010 - Born to Raise Hell
2010 - Game of Death
2011 - Killer Joe
2011 - Faces in the Crowd
2012 - Rites of Passage
2012 - The Magic of Belle Isle
2012 - Generation Um...
2012 - The Company You Keep
2012 - Border Run
2012 - Maximum Conviction
2012 - Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden
2013 - Don Jon
2013 - Empire State
2013 - Absolute Deception
2013 - The Zero Theorem
2013 - Dallas Buyers Club
2013 - Ambushed
2013 - Force of Execution
2014 - Reasonable Doubt
2014 - Puncture Wounds
2014 - A Good Man
2014 - Burying the Ex
2014 - Good Kill
2014 - The Cobbler
2014 - Playing It Cool
2014 - American Heist
2015 - Accidental Love
2015 - Home Invasion
2015 - Four Towers
2015 - Fathers and Daughters
2015 - Revolt
2015 - Good Kids
2016 - Untitled Cullen brothers film
The Hurt Locker
Literally the only other movie of theirs that I've heard about and it was bad. DBC was a snooze fest too.
Lot of crap movies in that list....no wonder they were trying other methods of getting money.
Literally the only other movie of theirs that I've heard about and it was bad. DBC was a snooze fest too.
+1
where would they get all these details buy not from the court ? � races in his mind
What do you mean by this? Is there a grammatical error here I'm not seeing because to me the sentence doesn't make sense.
If you mean where would the other studios get the customer information from, the only way is via discovery. Eeven then the outcome would mimic what is happened here, as Justice Perram has asked specifically that he preside over similar matters that may arise.
The idea that DBC would sell, or that a rival movie studio would buy, a list of the names of account holders who have allegedly infringed the copyright of DBC is so far-fetched and fanciful as to not warrant any discussion.
The list itself is insufficient to demonstrate the account holder infringed DBC's copyright, much less that of a different studio in relation to another movie. More importantly, it would be a serious breach of any court orders in place regarding this current matter and a grievous breach of Commonwealth privacy legislation.
Eeven then the outcome would mimic what is happened here, as Justice Perram has asked specifically that he preside over similar matters that may arise.
He is suggesting that DBC will offload customer details (if they pay $600k to get them) to other movie studios that they believe MaverickEye captured when they were monitoring IP addresses.
Remember they have already told Perram that they have a list of other movie/tv titles that the alleged pirates have also downloaded in the same time period as when they apparently downloaded/shared DBC.
The idea that DBC would sell, or that a rival movie studio would buy, a list of the names of account holders who have allegedly infringed the copyright of DBC is so far-fetched and fanciful as to not warrant any discussion.
Is this really what he meant?
Lol that would never happen. The list is useless to anoyone else as it only has IP address time stamp information on it pertaining to a single film!!
Remember they have already told Perram that they have a list of other movie/tv titles that the alleged pirates have also downloaded in the same time period as when they apparently downloaded/shared DBC.
Those details of other movies, time stamps and IP addresses would need to go through the same discovery process. Any court action taken by a rights holder who has bypassed the discovery process would be thrown out.
If Justice Perram agreed to release the names / addresses (which he hasn't unless they pay the bond) the details he allows to be released from the ISP to the rights holders will ONLY be pertaining to that one film this case relates to. There would be no way to match up other films to the same data.
Those details of other movies, time stamps and IP addresses would need to go through the same discovery process. Any court action taken by a rights holder who has bypassed the discovery process would be thrown out.
well i think that this is the crux of the point that is being made. If DBC pass on personal details to other intersted movie studios then they wouldnt need to go through discovery as they would already have all the customer details.
All the movie studio would need to do is find a law firm based in Australia and start mailing letters of demand.
If DBC pass on personal details to other intersted movie studios
But how is this beneficial to them? The details they get from the ISP will ONLY have info pertaining to the one film, no others. the judge will not allow extra information to be passed on.
other intersted movie studios then they wouldnt need to go through discovery as they would already have all the customer details.
But the information they get from IP is a snapshot of a particular IP at a particular time for a particular torrent. It is useless to them.
There would be no way to match up other films to the same data.
DBC would claim that there software has already matched other movie titles to the same IP address hence they were making an attempt to extract more damages, Obviously this was thrown out but the point remains that they have matched other movie titles to the same IP address in the same time period the same way they did for their own title.
The idea that DBC would sell, or that a rival movie studio would buy, a list of the names of account holders who have allegedly infringed the copyright of DBC is so far-fetched and fanciful as to not warrant any discussion.
Hmmm, what about if they wanted to use it to cross reference with their own list and maybe then use any matches as evidence towards being a serial offender and this increase potential damages. I know its far fetched but as we have seen these lawyers think of everything to try and increase damages or at least threat potential.
But how is this beneficial to them? The details they get from the ISP will ONLY have info pertaining to the one film, no others. the judge will not allow extra information to be passed on.
well they may onsell this information to other movie studios whos movie titles they have captured? They may just to it because they want to stick it to the pirates simply for spite and pleasure as their own operation has failed.
The idea that DBC would sell, or that a rival movie studio would buy, a list of the names of account holders who have allegedly infringed the copyright of DBC is so far-fetched and fanciful as to not warrant any discussion.
It is not "far-fetched and fanciful". You leave in Australia, and think like other Australians do. However, it is "dog eats dog" out there. Parts of America are ruthless and will go where you do not dare to go.
It would never fly. A judge will very quickly realise they got the identifying info off the back of a truck and would throw out the case.
You leave in Australia, and think like other Australians do.
And how is the health of speculative invoicing in Australia right now?
Parts of America are ruthless and will go where you do not dare to go.
I would suggest based on the last week it don't work to well in Australia.
I maintain that a judge would simply not allow the use of so called 'evidence' that has been acquired outside the court system. Judges hate that sort of stuff.
Edit: It just occurred to me that not only would the info be compromised and unfit for use in court, DBC would be in some real trouble for breaching people's privacy. I would imagine there are laws around who can give certain information to other parties, disclosures and permissions required? I don't think there would be no legal consequences there.
The other studios do not need a legal base for speculative invoicing. An average layman does not know that they had no legal basis. For what he/she is concerned, the legally-looking letter has his contact details correct (where would they get all these details buy not from the court ? � races in his mind), thus he believes what is written in the letter.
That is correct. However you would hope that not too many people fall for it before it's exposed as a scam.
As much as I don't trust corporate greed, I really don't think any studio of any substance is going to run what is effectively a complete scam.
And if they were, then why pay DBC for it. Much cheaper to just pick names out of a phone book.
Edit. Way too slow. You guys are all over it!
It would never fly. A judge will very quickly realise they got the identifying info off the back of a truck and would throw out the case.
You're assuming that a court would be involved. Remember if they pass on customer details to other interested movie studios then there would be no requirement for discovery (they have the info already) and can start sending out letters of demand..NOW granted they would never intend to take people to court with the precedent that has now been set, however it doesn't mean that they wont still send letters and harass people to pay.
DBC would be in some real trouble for breaching people's privacy.
if they were an Australian based entity yes of course they would be in a world of trouble, However Perram has already conceded that they cant be controlled as they are a foreign entity.
So if they breach Australian privacy laws there wont be any consequence for them. They would have nothing to lose.
If they did that it would be in every single newspaper, print and online. Eveyone knows at least someone in the tech space. The consistent message would be "these guys are criminals, throw the letter in the bin."
I doubt they would get many people. More likely DBC and the purchaser of the blackmarket list would find themselves in a lot of trouble.
So if they breach Australian privacy laws there wont be any consequence for them. They would have nothing to lose.
Actually there are massive consequences. The content industry as a whole represented in Australia will have absolutely no credibility left. They will ruin any chance of a good outcome in Australia for themselves and the entire copyright industry here. All the work they have done to get into politicians pockets, closed door meetings will all be undone. Nobody will take them seriously anymore.
Essentially they will prove that the consumer advocates and civil rights crowd were right all along, that they are nothing but rich, stubborn fat cats with way too much money and power, and will stop at nothing to keep it.
Furthermore most of the other studios, especially the big ones will not indulge in that behaviour. Porn studios may be a little different but I even think they would stick to their own territory where they know their invoicing will work
Nobody will take them seriously anymore.
You're correct that this kind of approach would be highly frowned upon by the big Studios but a little movie studio by the name of Voltage probably doesn't care too much about what the industry thinks of them. The President/Founder of Voltage was dis-invited from the Oscars a few years back due to something controversial he said about the industry at the time.
Voltage are already considered scum by the film industry - They ripped off the copyright from the production company that owns Godzilla, They owe millions of $$ to their own investors..
Im just saying that it wouldnt be out of character for them to do something shady with the customers information should they get there hands on it.
Until Abbott decides that all private VPNs are banned
Impossible really to effectively block VPN traffic even if they did outlaw VPN use (which would never ever happen).
if they did outlaw VPN use (which would never ever happen).
Never say never. You'd be amazed what laws can the government implement under a pretense of, say, the "fight with terror".
Never say never. You'd be amazed what laws can the government implement under a pretense of, say, the "fight with terror".
Yep. All he needs is for his spin team to come up with a clever analogy that compares VPNs to illegal immigrants, and the 3AW talk-back callers will slurp it down and ask for more.
e.g.
"Allowing people to uh, circumvent proper, uh, proper process, uh, and hide behind the laws and, uh, infrastructure of another country, is akin to a boat full of illegals seeking to hide within our borders, uh, again, uh, circumventing the, uh, proper process".
Government and business would be crippled without VPNs. They would never do it.
Does anyone else think Muad Dib actually works for DBC...
Does anyone else think Muad Dib actually works for DBC...
No. He's been here for years before DBC even existed telling us all we will be banished to the Spaghetti Monsters den if we even think of downloading something.....he hasn't changed his view it would appear.
I just don't understand the extent of paranoia some people have, DBC has been rendered powerless in their evil quest to extort Australians, they are no longer a viable threat. The reality is those accused of downloading said movie will at most be asked to pay $50-$100 which is a reasonable fee given that downloading the movie is illegal to begin with. There is also the option to tell them to get f***** in which case their is also very little DBC can actually do....
I just don't understand the extent of paranoia some people have, DBC has been rendered powerless in their evil quest to extort Australians, they are no longer a viable threat. The reality is those accused of downloading said movie will at most be asked to pay $50-$100 which is a reasonable fee given that downloading the movie is illegal to begin with. There is also the option to tell them to get f***** in which case their is also very little DBC can actually do..
Correct. The legal system still protects the citizen in Australia within reason. In the USA everyone seems to be fair game to corporate bullying.
It is not unreasonable to ask for 30 dollars for the movie and 50 dollars legal costs. it is unreasonable to ask for staggered fine system based on personal income and involve other titles not part of the case and send out letters designed to deceive and intimidate in my humble opinion.
It is not unreasonable to ask for 30 dollars for the movie and 50 dollars legal costs
Yes, but ask who for the money. The issue is there is no way to know who actually d/l the movie. We all need our own IP address!
IF they even bother to send them out (Massive IF) your options are. Pay the $50-100 without prejudice (without admitting guilt) to make the whole thing go away. Ignore the letter and there is a high likelihood nothing will happen. However IF it does, and you can prove your point in court DBC and trolls INC will be even more of a laughing stock than they already are at this point. They have shafted themselves and the industry through their ignorance, insolence and borderline criminal behavior. If you loose you probably will still only have to pay $100.
Now why does anyone actually bother worrying about getting backrupted by these maniacs anymore?
We all need our own IP address!
In China, they have solved this issue. If one walks into an Internet caf�, the staff records the details of your national ID against the IP address and the time you used.
Who says our government would not implement something similar, under a well-meaning reason of, say, war on child pornography ?
If one walks into an Internet caf�, the staff records the details of your national ID against the IP address and the time you used.
by that measure our municipal libraries must be all commie owned as all computers are logged against a library card for the duration of their use.
Can anyone say whether the Trans Pacific Partnership would allow film studios to sue Australia for loss of revenue as a result of our laws
I beleive the investor state settlement provisions only apply to legislation enacted after the start of the agreement.
Until Abbott decides that all private VPNs are banned
To quote Charlton Heston "From my cold dead hands"
It's really time for all Australians to VPN up so there is no trail (or at least a very difficult trail) for these guys to chase.
We have seen how determined the USA has been in intercepting information, all the talk of back doors into devices, etc. I would not put it past a determined entertainment industry with government in their pocket to inspect VPN traffic under the excuse of national security, even if it does come with some cost of slowdown or whatever. I wouldn't expect VPN to be banned, but to receive scrutiny if it wasn't owned by a company (perhaps even if it was).
To quote Charlton Heston "From my cold dead hands"
So, when are you booking your funeral ?
I would not put it past a determined entertainment industry with government in their pocket to inspect VPN traffic under the excuse of national security
It could be argued that putting every business and private VPN in the USA under NSA surveillance might constitute a 'Pitchforks trigger'.
This is best described as violent periods of political turmoil sometimes leading to a dictatorship. DBC and it's seriously wet industry adherents don't seem significant enough to generate enough anger...
It could be argued that putting every business and private VPN in the USA under NSA surveillance might constitute a 'Pitchforks trigger'.
I think we could safely assume that merely breathing the words "national security" removes a lot of opposition. The public has given up so many freedoms for it that business will be patriotically expected to do the same. Once the provisions are in place for "national security" reasons, as they have been already for interception of telecommunications, then it isn't much of a scope creep to argue that "all this pirating is hurting the economy and threatening national security" to allow the entertainment industry to piggy-back on the interception. After all, if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear, right?
My tin foil hat must have holes in it......
Someone pass me another please
Does anyone else think Muad Dib actually works for DBC...
Nah he works for senator "George Brandis" He sent him so so many emails about the piracy problem in Australia so George Brandis hired him as hes wing man.
The idea of NSA actually breaking VPN encryption (PPTP maybe but L2PT and openVPN are still unbroken) is pretty out there guys. What is even more out there is the notion that Hollywood would 'team' up with spy agencies to leverage that so called encryption breaking tech to go after alleged infringers?
It's frankly nonsense. Tin foil hats are strong with this one ><
Impossible really to effectively block VPN traffic even if they did outlaw VPN use (which would never ever happen).
How do you even identify VPN traffic? Isn't it just a stream of encrypted data going from point A to point B? How would you differentiate it from any other stream of data, like those used by game clients to the servers?
How do you even identify VPN traffic?
Easiest method is to associate the traffic with known IP addresses owned by VPN vendors.
You are pretty much spot on in the rest of your post. It is virtually impossible to separate encrypted VPN traffic from other streams of data. I would imagine if there was a way and it was employed it would absolutely break the internet in Australia.
Once the 14 days for appeal deadline had expired, I reckon they would be doing the digital equivalent of paper shredding.
DBC could accept the decision and simply let the process go on without paying the bond. iiNet would have to hold onto the data. I don't know how long they could string that along though.
It is virtually impossible to separate encrypted VPN traffic from other streams of data. I would imagine if there was a way and it was employed it would absolutely break the internet in Australia.
Exactly. That's why all this talk of banning VPNs is just that. It's talk. They can't do it.
iiNet would have to hold onto the data.
Actually no.
There is absolutely no obligation for any ISP to hold any data at all if they feel like operating that way. It would of course make them a very inefficient ISP as they would have no ability to bill customers, offer data management services and other useful services to customers such as usage logs etc.
iiNet right now, could decide to implement a policy of no IP address keeping, and remove all IP address information from their systems on a 24 or 48 hour cycle.
There is an assumption that iiNet has the data DBC has requested. By no means is this correct. There could be massive holes, missing data, data that isn't kept as routine.
Only when data retention kicks in are there legal obligations to keep data within a certain data set stipulated by the legislation.
Edit: More broadly, the type of information, metadata, garbage kept by individual ISP's varies dramatically in terms of content and duration. It's very much ISP specific based on their own internal policies.
There is an assumption that iiNet has the data DBC has requested. By no means is this correct. There could be massive holes, missing data, data that isn't keep as routine.
I tend to agree with this as well. The assumption by the courts and DBC is that iiNET can make a successful match.
iiNet are still to receive final orders to handover the customers details, so until then iiNet themselves dont know if they can make a match for the IP Addresses provided for the time period in question.
I guess DBC will have to pay $600k to find out.
I guess DBC will have to pay $600k to find out.
And if they did it could well be $600k to see a blank piece of paper.
Surely things like this add more troubles to their "we have your IP address, so it must be you" theory?
http://bgr.com/2015/07/01/pr
I'm not a downloader, but I have been watching this DBC debacle with interest. I too cannot see how an IP address is definitive proof of a specific persons activities. Especially when there's freely available devices like that shown in the article above.
And if they did it could well be $600k to see a blank piece of paper.
if that happened it would probably have to be one of the funniest things you could ever hear.
Poor DBC come into Australia wanting customer details, But this one ISP (iiNET) is a major pain in the ass that literally contested every arguement making the entire discovery process more expensive, and has lasted almost a year.
Then after all of the hearings, all of the submissions and perhaps eventually they stump up $600k to only have iiNet say "sorry guys, we dont have that data anymore so we cant make a match"
"sorry guys, we dont have that data anymore so we cant make a match"
But importantly the caveat to justify the price � "We spent many man hours and resources searching for the data however unfortunately came away empty handed."
But importantly the caveat to justify the price � "We spent many man hours and resources searching for the data however unfortunately came away empty handed
Rumor has it that if iiNet are eventually given final orders to make a match that they don't intend on charging this to DBC as they now understand that this will only add to the monetary claim DBC can make against its customers.
That is actually a very very good point.
I have PIA and they put out a warning that Elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) may have been broken and not to use it. They have several other options which have not been broken.
Link please
Even if DBC choose not to appeal they will still have 3-6 years to agree to Perrams bond request
What will happen if the DBC does that in 6 years ? The Judge Perram is likely to have moved on by that time. The new judge would not understand the matter, or would not care, and thus would be lenient on DBC.
What will happen if the DBC does that in 6 years ? The Judge Perram is likely to have moved on by that time. The new judge would not understand the matter, or would not care, and thus would be lenient on DBC.
i cant see Perram moving on � in contrast to other High Court Judges Perram is relatively young for a judge so he is some way off retirement.
in the unlikely event Perram is no longer the overseeing judge in this case wont make any difference. Perram has passed judgement and written orders, Not to mention his judgement is now precedent. The only way that his judgement cant be used as precedence is if DBC lodge a successful appeal within the next 7 days OR the government make some changes to the legislation which would overrule the judgement here.
The other point is that in 6 yrs time the landscape for accessing digital contact will have dramatically improved (I'm being optimistic). So their arguments will be even more ridiculous than they are now.
They pretty much need to act now, while the old models they're clinging to still have relevance.
There is absolutely no obligation for any ISP to hold any data at all if they feel like operating that way. It would of course make them a very inefficient ISP as they would have no ability to bill customers, offer data management services and other useful services to customers such as usage logs etc.
You're black and whiting it. Some ISPs do not need to hold any data, aka "unlimited plans", some just increment a few boxes on data counters, some only hold it for one month then it gets bit bucketed.
A few ISPs minimised their data logging when the first "requests" started to be made.
You're black and whiting it.
For that example I was highlighting one extreme.
If you read my entire post you will see that I stipulate that individual ISP's have different arrangements when it comes to retaining data (not legislation related).
And if they did it could well be $600k to see a blank piece of paper.
The bond is just there to ensure they don't get greedy. They only lose that money if they breach the court orders.
How do you even identify VPN traffic? Isn't it just a stream of encrypted data going from point A to point B? How would you differentiate it from any other stream of data, like those used by game clients to the servers?
ISPs can use deep packet inspection (DPI) to identify OpenVPN connections and traffic, which is how some of them throttle VPN speeds. The data contained within the IP tunnel is encrypted and safe, but the OpenVPN protocol can be derived.
As a result of this, some VPN companies (ie airVPN) are now obfuscating their traffic by running VPN over SSL, meaning ISPs are no longer able to identify and throttle VPN traffic. Of course the extra layer of encryption means a performance hit.
Using IP addresses to limit anything (ie VPN exit nodes) is pretty worthless... like trying to herd cats.
To smell other peoples sweat.
Graham Burke is truly a joke.
I agree with his view that people will always want to go out and be social, and therefore cinemas will always have a role to play. However, he's completely ignoring a whole segment of consumers who don't want to go to the cinema and would prefer parallel digital distribution. Piracy is filling this market void that he is unwilling to. He really needs to view piracy for what it is, a competing distribution model satisfying a market failure rather than a legal issue.
Personally I never go to a cinema any more now that they are more like a food barn with all the noises of people feeding their faces, awful
Piracy is filling this market void that he is unwilling to. He really needs to view piracy for what it is, a competing distribution model satisfying a market failure rather than a legal issue.
And because he's a fool, he won't do that.
I look forward to Village Roadshow and Foxtel getting a kick in the nuts financially over their stranglehold methods. Now Netflix is here (and getflix :P ) � you can get a pretty good range for a reasonable price. Most Australians don't want to pirate � but they aren't left with much choice (if they require that they not have "spoilers".. yes I know this is hardly a survival issue, but it's how people think.)
I pondered paying $49 for a year of getflix. Then I remembered I paid $40 to see the latest mission impossible.. cinemas are the ones doing themselves out of profit with that kind of price.
I'd much rather invest in some home av equipment than get fleeced like that every time.
i agree tottally with your post
Then I remembered I paid $40 to see the latest mission impossible.. cinemas are the ones doing themselves out of profit with that kind of price
this is why people download and it comes down to price say a family movie as everyone has mentioned before
you can drop $300 with all the munchies and drinks and tickets some say it is not possible but you work it out
I pondered paying $49 for a year of getflix. Then I remembered I paid $40 to see the latest mission impossible.. cinemas are the ones doing themselves out of profit with that kind of price.
just wait a few months and you will get Mission Impossible bluray for 5 bucks at your local market.
Thats 14 days past right? I guess no appeal.
just wait a few months and you will get Mission Impossible bluray for 5 bucks at your local market.
Or wait 5 years and watch it on FTA, but I don't really get your point.
New releases have more value. People will pay a premium and businesses should try to capitalise on that. I'm totally fine with this as long as they're providing value rather than simply gouging due to having a monopoly.
I think this debate is less about money and more about access and competition. I totally agree with the previous post that piracy is simply a symptom of the market failing to deliver what consumers want. Why not evolve and turn this into money rather than trying to fight it?
Or wait 5 years and watch it on FTA, but I don't really get your point.
Pathetic resolutions on FTA ???? LOL.
Yeah lets watch Avatar (Made for 1080p) in glorious 576p (With glorious compression artifacts).
Most Australians don't want to pirate
Australians are chronic pirates, possibly something to do with the convict genetics. Another reason not to go to the cinemas which are full of loud mouthed and smelly bogans. Never go on 'discount Tuesday.
Australians are chronic pirates, possibly something to do with the convict genetics.
Genetics has nothing to do with it � it's just a hereditary social norm.
Australians are chronic pirates, possibly something to do with the convict genetics.
Actually, it's something to do with the "Australia Tax" which gives us frighteningly high pay TV costs, and ridiculously excessive movie ticket prices.
The other main factor, the lag time between overseas release dates and Australian release dates has been improved, but only because of pressure from downloaders.
BTW, most of us aren't descended from convicts, and even if we were, there is no such thing as convict genetics. ;)
The other main factor, the lag time between overseas release dates
That, and when it comes to Adult cartoons like archer/fan guy/American dad/Simpsons etc it's hard to know who exactly or if there is an Australian rights holder. Had Foxtel for years and never saw any new episodes of the above, just old reruns. To stay on topic my point is about content accessibility and that torrent sites are well organised and have been for many years. while media industries are embracing it now, they have taken their sweet time..,
I'd be curious to know if the profits from companies such as BCC and Hoyts have dropped/remained the same/increased since downloading has ramped up in the last few years. I'm not a downloaded as I'd rather wait for BR quality to capitalise on the picture and the sound. That being said these companies need to come to the realisation that the Internet isn't going to go away and they may need to rethink their distribution models.
iinet not supplying Fetch TV any more at the direction of the new owners TPG would there be some connection to this case ?
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/20
Re. eating in the cinema.
I fail to understand why so many are unable to spend two hours without continually and noisily stuffing food into their mouths. They are either eating or talking, never quietly watching.
New releases have more value. People will pay a premium and businesses should try to capitalise on that. I'm totally fine with this as long as they're providing value rather than simply gouging due to having a monopoly.
Value is usually determined by the market in a free market system (but only where there is competition and no anti-competitive behaviour): in those conditions, price is ultimately set by a balance between the consumer and seller, unless the seller manipulates supply.
There has been a recent trend for Sony in particular to make some back catalogue releases only available through Twilight Time distributors as a limited run. In most cases they sellout very quickly, which indicates the demand is there for greater supply, but the limited run ensures a higher asking price. IMO, this is market manipulation.
Unfortunately, the studios have engaged in market manipulation from the beginning with their effective monopoly due to DRM and region coding.
What's worse, is the pervasive attitude that IP can be used to merely grant someone a license to use a product only in a certain way and to have that backed by technological measures which are illegal to circumvent.
Worse still is the actual granting of copyright and extension of copyright to business that was not involved in the actual creation of the product: the creators generally don't get the advantage of copyright, only the business designed to profit from it. Copyright has become more about the profitability of 3rd parties than the original creators it was designed to protect.
I think this debate is less about money and more about access and competition.
The fundamental issue is about money and 3rd party expectations of continuing profit growth, regardless of market conditions, which they are propping up through increasingly onerous and desperate copyright and associated DRM legislation. This market manipulation for increasing profit (and remember profit is surplus on top of everyone being paid for their efforts) involves manipulating access and competition.
What we complain about is the mechanism for ensuring profit growth instead of questioning the right to profit growth regardless.
I totally agree with the previous post that piracy is simply a symptom of the market failing to deliver what consumers want.
I think it is more than that, in that it reflects a fundamental problem with the growth at all costs economic model that is ripping capitalist nations apart: consumers are simply finding ways to redress the imbalance, because they are the main driving force in the free market system.
Nope. So where does it go from here?
They will evaluate the legal precedent and move on to their next foray, rolling over is not in Hollywood's DNA
rolling over is not in Hollywood's DNA
as you can see by them remaking movies now at 5 year intervals
Nope. So where does it go from here?
Only time will tell. I cannot imagine for one moment that they will just pack up and go home after investing so much time and money and the criticality of speculative invoicing to the sustainability of their out-dated business model.
One thing that is sure is that their next step will defy all logic and will likely involve a "donation" to one or more political parties.
My question is whether they have actually spent much on this?
I have this idea they would want the early legal bit done on a shoestring budget so that it's possible to cut their losses and walk away if it turns to custard. I keep thinking the reason they end up with the oddball type legal firms is that they pick someone who wants the exposure and the deal is highly incentivised for a win, or a % of the recovery or something else that doesn't require a lot of cash up front.
I just can't see them gambling heaps of cash where their chances are unknown. Somewhere along the line there is a boss man that will want to know where the money went.
It's not uncommon for rights holders to share up to 50% of revenue from settlements received with the law firm that represents them..
Given the recent judgement it's one thing for dbc to want to proceed and recover costs and a purchase fee of the film but I suspect it's another for the law firm to want to proceed if there is no money in it for them.
This entire case has been about making profit at the expense of account holders that it may have been alleged infringed copyright....that's all...profit.
Now it's been shown that Justice Perram will not allow them to profit but to only make good, their entire business model collapses...
This is great news for all concerned because in my view they have no right to make a profit on copyright infringement...just on the sale or hire of the work...which of course is a pitance in comparison to what they were threatening to sue for....and that was substantial and would scare many naive people into paying thousands that these trolls now have no rights to obtain....
hen Village started allocating seating in nearly empty cinemas years ago I stopped going. I'm an adult, I'll decide where I freaking sit in your dingy, dirty, nearly empty cinema thanks!
I ignore seat allocation if the cinema is half empty . If someone comes along and insists on their seating number I'll just move.
DBC opt not to appeal � HOWEVER managing director of DBC law firm suggests that Perram's judgement didn't completely rule out the possibility of awarding punitive/aggravated damages.
DBC law firm has anticipated that another approach to the court would be made in the near future requesting that the stay be lifted. They were still working out the revised methodology for extra damages.
http://www.itnews.com.au/new
DBC opt not to appeal � HOWEVER managing director of DBC law firm suggests that Perram's judgement didn't completely rule out the possibility of awarding punitive/aggravated damages.
DBC law firm has anticipated that another approach to the court would be made in the near future requesting that the stay be lifted. They were still working out the revised methodology for extra damages.
I didn't think they'd give up so easily.
I wonder how long iiNet need to hold onto those records ( .... if they are even still avaiable)
I didn't think they'd give up so easily.
I wonder how long iiNet need to hold onto those records ( .... if they are even still avaiable)
The article said;
Michael Bradley, managing director of the law firm representing DBC LLC, Marque Lawyers, told iTnews the company had decided not to appeal the decision based on the cost and risk involved.
http://www.itnews.com.au/news
So it appears cost from that was an issue and they are trying to avoid costs while maximizing possible damages received. So if the case becomes too costly or risky they may even fold their tents. Who knows.
The ISPs would have to hold the records while the case is still going on.
The ISPs would have to hold the records while the case is still going on.
Technically the judgement was for them to hand over the details, but the decision was issued a stay. As such, the ISPs would have to retain the data for Voltage � it's just up to Voltage & their letter content as to when those details are passed along.
. Who knows.
Reads a bit like a face-saving media release. I would be surprised if they go any further especially as the three strikes policy officially began this week although not yet implemented due to the matter of who pays.
Quote
"DBC LLC plans to rework its proposed methodology for damages and resubmit it to the court to be able to access the account holder details it is seeking."
Reads a bit like a face-saving media release.
I wouldn't say that. This was always a test case for both the law firm and the production studio. They need to keep Pushing the boundaries to see what they can ask for in damages.
They need to keep Pushing the boundaries to see what they can ask for in damages.
The damages they are entitled to is limited to the license fee they would have received for the rental or purchase of one of of the work.
A Downloader that downloads the film is not going to be hit with aggravated damages.
DBC couldn't even get a warrant from the court to invade someone's home, search for and remove computers for forensic examination. No judge in Australia will allow that behavior on a case that is so trivial and of such minor monetary value that it would be considered a waste of time......crazy.
A Downloader that downloads the film is not going to be hit with aggravated damages.
Clearly dbc lawyers think that perrams judgement left the door ajar for punitive damages if dbc can justify it.. They obviously think they can hence the comments made by dbc law firm today.
The problem dbc will have now is given the earlier extortion attempt which perram declined, I don't think he will have a sympathetic ear moving forward.
Punitive damages based on...what? hasn't the previous ruling excluded counting the uploads to others and other titles the tracked being shared by the same IP address?
They will evaluate the legal precedent and move on to their next foray, rolling over is not in Hollywood's DNA
Spot On � They will never ever give up. They will just find another way of Suing Aussies for Millions
Punitive damages based on...what? hasn't the previous ruling excluded counting the uploads to others and other titles the tracked being shared by the same IP address?
Well perram has already ruled that they won't be awarded damages on this however I'm sure dbc can come up with some other method.. They may claim a percentage in lost revenues attributed by x amount of people you shared with.
If you read the judgement you will see that Perram hasn't ruled out the possibility of punitive damages if anything he states that it's a genuine chance of being awarded provided dbc show the amount it intends to ask for and the method of how it came to the amount..
In fact doesn't this response from DBC prove that they are simply not interested in sending a message and recovering reasonable losses and no more. RATHER they are only interested in an approach that will advance their financial returns via a legal route? Surely this just puts them back into the realm of speculative invoicing?!
I guess so � for your example did the data they presented somehow show how much an individual ip shared? other than some estimate of the swam size?!
at the end of the day I guess the logic the judge has applied thus far has been fair and reasonable I'll remain positive that he will be logical in any assessment of a punitive damages scenario. The basic premise is the majority of people downloaded the file and watched it. Not criminal masterminds
Just checked that TF link...if they could prove how much a particular IP had uploaded then it would be a much stronger case against individuals. It looks like if they carry on its going to be another generalisation which won't hold up. They need to drop the whole punitive damages for downloading OTHER copyrighted works. That shiz ain't gunna fly in Australia and nor should it. Making money via suing off other people's copyrighted work is far worse than someone downloading it as there's financial gain involved.
Making money via suing off other people's copyrighted work is far worse than someone downloading it as there's financial gain involved.
100% Agree. Suing People Mega Bucks for Downloading Stuff is lot worse then People Downloading it.
Downloading does not effect people as much as Suing them for all there Money and Destroying there Lives
Suing People Mega Bucks for Downloading Stuff is lot worse then People Downloading it.
Justice needs to be proportional to the crime involved: peoples lives are held to a higher standard than a non-entity of a limited business.
If copyright infringement was shown to substantially affect the living standard of the individuals affected, then there might be an ethical case for proportional compensation, but a business should have no rights to impugn a person and I refuse to accept that the choice to pursue compensation through an expensive mechanism (of the judicial system) justifies forcing the infringer to wear those costs.
Looking back on the $600k bond, it saddens me that personal privacy has been reduced to a value of $125. Has that now set a precedent for the assumed market rate of selling out an individuals privacy?
Meanwhile, I expect the studios long game hopes to gain access to compensation via the back door through ISDS provisions in FTA.
Looking back on the $600k bond, it saddens me that personal privacy has been reduced to a value of $125. Has that now set a precedent for the assumed market rate of selling out an individuals privacy?
I don't really follow this. The order to provide account holders details was given before the bond was imposed. The bond is just a result of DBC trying to pull a stunt.
Wouldn't the cost of privacy be better equated to DBCs costs up to the end of the discovery hearing + the ISPs fee for delivering this data?
Well perram has already ruled that they won't be awarded damages on this however I'm sure dbc can come up with some other method.. They may claim a percentage in lost revenues attributed by x amount of people you shared with.
What damages? These bottom feeders are merely trying to make glue stick to air, it's not going to happen.
My feeling is that this oddball Law firm contracted by DBC (after no self respecting firm would touch) have been paying the bills all along with the proviso that all claim settlements are split 50/50. The fact that they did not appeal due to cost concerns as spelt out by it's director is evidence to me to that end. If these people get their way and extract (read extort) say $500 from each individual, the end result would be 28,000 x $500 = $14,000,000. That amounts to $7,000,000 each. Only problem is how do they get past the damages claim with a real and demonstrable case? As we all know and have waxed lyrical here that after all the sharing each downloader can only have a single copy on their drive, period.
They will now wait to see what the Government will legislate since the ISP's & rights holders did not reach a consensus vis-a-vis the 3 strike policy by September 1st. My guess they will hope the government will subvert the good judge's work.
They need to give up and go home. Perram is not going to allow them to extort Australians, that much is abundantly clear. Some desperate moves it seems in their final hour in Australia, and Perrams' patience with these extortionists is waning very thin.
My guess is that any attempt they make to save face will be met with very harsh skepticism, and It will be their last pitch to the court.
Their only option is � give us $100; anything else will be a FO kinda deal.
In which case they have lost money, reputation and legal precedence anyway.
I gotta say, they deserve it.
With TPG now taking full control of iiNet, and David Buckingham (recent iiNet ceo) stepping down it will be interesting to see how much involvement iiNet has in this case moving forward from a legal representation point of view?
Up until now Perram had been seeking iinets legal council opinion on methodology/draft letters etc.
Will the new iiNet follow through with arranging legal advice pro bono for when letters eventually are sent out?
iiNet in the past had mentioned that they will notify customers who's information had been handed over, will this still happen?
This might prove to be TPGs first test when it comes to demonstrating if they plan to continue iinets rich history of customer advocacy or if they plan to turn iiNet into a tpg clone.
the lawyers involved are playing the smart game. Continuing to convince DBC that there's money to be made while charging their client. It doesn't matter how they spell it out, speculative invoicing does not exist here. If this rights holder had one ounce of dignity and honesty they would have paid the bond, acquired the names, attempted to charge the offenders with the agreed costs regulated by the court, then buggered off. They have said all along that it's not about money and they just want to fix Australia's piracy problem. At least they would have made some sort of impact on downloading behaviour. (Although as everyone's aware, these guys Christmas wish would be the entire country downloading illegally to give them more justification to damages to claim....hence why they are against the 3 strikes code)
Well said Cheesemethod.
What I would be interested to know is who decided on the figure for the "distribution licence fee" which was ultimately rejected (I believe because its value more than its idea). The lawyers or voltage? And at what dollar amount for this license fee would the judge deem acceptable/unacceptable.
I can assure you that all the ideas are coming out of the marquee lawyers camp..getting the damages and methodology at an acceptable level is paramount for lawyers...they get this right then they can go after the 20k Optus and Telstra customers they say they have not to mention represent other movie studios who will follow suit.. Perram never ruled out additional damages, he just hasn't agreed with the amounts that they will be seeking..
It will be interesting to see how long perram will allow dbc to go back and fourth with the courts with these amendments.
What I don't understand is if perram has made his final ruling on what damages they can seek and dbc has chosen not to appeal then how is it they can choose to alter and or introduce a different type of damages? Surely they have had there chance and run there race?
.they get this right then they can go after the 20k Optus and Telstra customers they say they have not to mention represent other movie studios who will follow suit.. Perram never ruled out additional damages, he just hasn't agreed with the amounts that they will be seeking..
Apparently the monitoring by DBC was done around April to May 2014. If this is correct then Optus and Telstra may no longer have records this far back enabling identification of IP addresses.
Apparently the monitoring by DBC was done around April to May 2014.
True that the case in question for iiNet customers is for this time period. I wouldn't assume that it is the same time period for Telstra/Optus.. Not to mention marverick eye would be doing monitoring year round, so they could pull any time period they want... We know that April-may 2014 was when the monitoring started.
Time will tell, but I'm guessing that the 4.8k iiNet customer represent only a small piece of the pie.
Hence the reason why dbc and its lawyers aren't giving up on the iiNet case just yet is because they know that this case will set the benchmark for all future discovery cases, dbc and its lawyers will keep pushing this case through the courts as long as perram enables them to or until they get the outcome they want.
Optus and Telstra may no longer have records
Was wondering this myself and also wondering why the lawyers announced that they would be going after the other (25,000?ish) on the remaining ISPs afterwards. Because that case of the future is not before the courts, those ISPs would be free to flush records if they still have them. (Of course I have no idea what would be involved in doing this) but you would have thought the lawyers would have kept their cards closer to their chest. It also didn't help their speculative invoicing case and would have been in the back if perrams mind that the number of Australians that would become victims of extortion would jump to close to 30,000
and dbc has chosen not to appeal then how is it they can choose to alter and or introduce a different type of damages? Surely they have had there chance and run there race?
Totally agree. You'd think that the entire process including discovery would need to be restarted, as extreme and silly as it sounds...
Yeah not sure why they even have the option to waste more time in Australian courts. I only hope it serves to make the humiliation of these predators even more profound..
Can we be sure they 'have absolutely no idea'? Is it technically impossible?
Personally I think it's unlikely they would try to monitor individuals to this degree but I couldn't rule it out. All we know about is the monitoring that they used for discovery. It doesn't mean that's all they're up to.
I really don't mean this in snarky way... but honestly � if I got one of these letters I would totally ignore it and not even respond until I got a summons from an Australian court.
if I got one of these letters I would totally ignore it and not even respond until I got a summons from an Australian court.
Ah, but what if a Filipino call centre got you on the phone? What then huh? I bet you'd pay up.
Can we be sure they 'have absolutely no idea'? Is it technically impossible?
According to the Torrent Freak article referenced previously there is no way of showing who shared what with whom in the swarm.
Perhaps someone with technical knowledge can confirm or rebut this?
What then huh? I bet you'd pay up.
Why does a call from a Filipino Call Centre have more sway than a letter from Legal firm?
I find hanging up on cold callers very effective (and rewarding:-) It amazes me the number of people who feel that they have to listen and keep talking to someone who rang them � yet those same people probably dismiss all the junk mail in their postbox without even a glance.
Perhaps someone with technical knowledge can confirm or rebut this?
As an example lets say you have 4 people in a swarm. A, B ,C and M. Lets say M is maverick eye.
A connects to B to download.
B connects to C to download.
C connects to A to download.
M connects to A to download a peice of DBM.
A can see B,C and M because they are connected to them. A cannot see that B is also connected to C. And B cannot see that A is also connected to C. All M can see is A. It can't see A is connected to C and B.
A doesn't send M a message saying "Hey, just so you know, I'm uploading to C and downloading from B"
Even if M connects to A, B and C. All it knows is they upload a file to it, it doesnt know if they are sharing the file between themselves as well.
The only way for M to find who A, B and C are connected to is be sitting at A, B and C's computers. Or have some kind of malware installed that reports back who they are connected to.
According to the Torrent Freak article referenced previously there is no way of showing who shared what with whom in the swarm.
Perhaps someone with technical knowledge can confirm or rebut this?
The problem is that I don't trust anything I read on the net, especially when it's just a statement with no explanation.
More broadly, my question is: what information could a torrent client potentially mine out of a swarm?
they have the right to sue alleged infringers for their loss....that should not be denied them...
Couldn't agree with you more but they clearly aren't after losses. They are after extraordinary amounts of punitive cash. If they were after their losses then pay the bond, grab your losses and get your bond back. They are trying to sue people for downloading other studios material, how on earth is that THEIR loss or their right to claim compensation? should be case closed. They were after discovery and it was granted providing some conditions.
I guess if they connected to you over multiple days, they could theorise that a certain amount of data was uploaded
Yep, they couldn't determine the amount of data transferred if you were seeding for several weeks, however if maverick eye downloaded a slither every day over several weeks from the same IP then it may show intent to distribute? However that would be a minority, with the majority downloading 100% and sharing 5%-10% in return.
ep, they couldn't determine the amount of data transferred if you were seeding for several weeks, however if maverick eye downloaded a slither every day over several weeks from the same IP then it may show intent to distribute? However that would be a minority, with the majority downloading 100% and sharing 5%-10% in return.
Also many people have dynamic IP addresses so their IP addresses change each log in time. So this obviously makes it harder to identify if the same person is seeding on a daily basis.
Also many people have dynamic IP addresses so their IP addresses change each log in time. So this obviously makes it harder to identify if the same person is seeding on a daily basis.
I guess until they obtain the discovery information from the ISP's. That said, in this case there could be (significantly?) less than 4700 letters sent out (if and when they are) as many of these IP addresses could originate from the same account. I haven't seen this discussed here when it has come to people doing calculations based on the 4700 number.
) less than 4700 letters sent out (if and when they are) as many of these IP addresses could originate from the same account.
Not only that, but 99% of them will be pensioners, welfare recipients, pensioned war veterans and unemployed..
This really does limit their return.....I suspect they may find a few people to sue......let's divide their legal costs by 3....what does that mean each will have to pay in the applicant's costs to date... $100,000?
Do dynamic only change on restart of the modem? If so I don't imagine there would much of a change. The only time my modem has been restarted is because of a power cut. Mines static anyway.
Do dynamic only change on restart of the modem? If so I don't imagine there would much of a change
Yes, the IP address changes everytime you log on.
I have my modem set to disconnect after 30 min of inactivity, mainly for security.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that level of management is unlikely to apply to the sort of people that I think DBC have netted.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that level of management is unlikely to apply to the sort of people that I think DBC have netted.
The disconnect time is just one setting on your modem. Simple.
Gives a little more security against unauthorized logins.
I dont download movies so not really concerned about that.
Yeah sure. How many people do you think actually realise their modems have settings in the first place, let alone know how to get in, know what to change and why?
Yeah sure. How many people do you think actually realise their modems have settings in the first place, let alone know how to get in, know what to change and why?
They could turn their modem off then turn the modem back on.
But back on topic to the letters.
The disconnect time is just one setting on your modem. Simple.
Gives a little more security against unauthorized logins.
I dont download movies so not really concerned about that.
Sorry I am confused.
Are you saying your modems management interface is available via the wan interface? If so you need to stop that immediately unless you have a very good reason not to.
Or are you saying people can log in to stuff on your network from out side? If so you need to fix your NAT or access list if you have one.
No tin foil hats required if configured correctly.
Edit:
Also, I would like to add that having a dynamic IP does not mean you get a new one every time you reconnect. Depending on your ISP you may not get a new IP for a period of a month or longer.
Even if you do get a new one every thirty minutes as you claim, it is a non factor as ISPs are required by law to log who has what and for how long. I think the legislation states for two years they have to keep logs (but I could be wrong on the time there).
Even if you do get a new one every thirty minutes as you claim, it is a non factor as ISPs are required by law to log who has what and for how long. I think the legislation states for two years they have to keep logs (but I could be wrong on the time there).
No I didnt claim every 30 min, if you read my post you will see I said the modem disconnects after 30 min of INACTIVITY, not every 30 min.
And yes we know about the logs (which is what DBC is trying to access ) but if you read the proceeding posts we were discussing how if you had a dynamic IP address it made to harder to ascertain from the torrent details who was a prolific downloader.
Can we please get back on topic to the DBC letters.
I thought VPN fixed that
Should I change the statement to Depending on the private tracker possibly no need for VPN?
But also private trackers comes with rules eg: no leaches, hit & run etc, so the quality of the seeds and peers may be better. I get everything I need from Public.
I wouldn't see private trackers as being any safer than public. A certain well known private tracker was infiltrated recently and people received warning letters regarding leaked GoT episodes. If you can be a member of a private tracker, so can they. It wouldn't be hard for movie companies to obtain an invite via someone willing to sell or simply joining and bumping up their ratios via their own honeypot movie uploads.
Private trackers would be quicker at removing those accounts responsible for the upload, but the damage has still been done.
i tried private trackers and found them to be a pain in the neck with all their rules and regulations � and they didn't have anywhere near the amount of stuff that public did � sometimes the downloads might have been a bit quicker
I wouldn't see private trackers as being any safer than public.
That's why I said "Depending"
If you can be a member of a private tracker, so can they.
Some private trackers were based in Aus & locked to the WAIX & PIPE networks & membership by invites only. Not sure if any still exists as I only use public now. It could also be said why bother trying to access private trackers when they can get millions of IP address a day from public (less risky), and finally lets not forget some private trackers have rules about ratios & possible wait times not giving immediate access to the latest content, some have a donate option to skip the wait times.
I'm not saying I personally think private are better than public as I no longer wish to seed 24/7 & VPN's are common these days, but if you are happy to seed 24/7, be the first to upload a torrent then I would never do it on a public tracker. I'm seeing some unsuspecting users seeding torrents for months and having ratios in the hundreds because they are clueless (maybe careless) on how to set up a torrent, certainly wouldn't want to be them with maverick eye watching.
what is 1 thing you can get from private trackers that u can't get from pirate bay ? with a lot less hassle
Depending on the private tracker possibly no maverick eye.
It's not that hard to social engineer an invite to a private tracker. I've seen plenty of randoms request invites to private trackers on public forums and be given them. It's fanciful to believe private trackers can't be pentrated by the likes of Maverick eye. A misconfigured torrent client with DHT and PEX enabled will leak enough info about the swarm before the private tracker disconnects it.
All they give is obscurity as public trackers are the low hanging fruit. They are not at all effective in providing anonymity.
It's fanciful to believe private trackers can't be pentrated by the likes of Maverick eye.
When did I say that?, do you understand the difference between a definitive claim & saying "Possibly" seeing I especially mentioned about some p2p networks being locked to WAIX or PIPE IP's (was in the past, cant say now)
These P2P networks are not advertised, their home page mentions nothing about P2P, can be exclusive & closed to new users, do you think Maverick eye would be a concern in these cases? Again, I no longer use private trackers as public & a vpn serve me well & I'm not advising that all private trackers are 100% obscured from maverick eye so I suggest your step down off your soap box.
That's why I said "Depending"
I should point out that my post wasn't directed at you. It's just a general comment on something that has been mentioned by numerous people throughout this thread.
i tried private trackers and found them to be a pain in the neck with all their rules and regulations � and they didn't have anywhere near the amount of stuff that public did � sometimes the downloads might have been a bit quicker
"Decent" Private trackers (usually closed membership) are a LOT faster than any public trackers.
You will get banned on a Private Tracker if you have access to upload and then mislabel items stating Blueray rip when its a Cam like happens a lot on public sites. Same goes for virus in utils that are commonly found on public sites.
Closed private trackers are likely to be "more" safe than public trackers, lower risk does not however equal no risk.
Downside of private trackers is of course usually maintaining a ratio which is the main reason Private is so much faster than public, people hit and run all the time on public sites and the speed is poor as a result.
Downside of private trackers is of course usually maintaining a ratio which is the main reason Private is so much faster than public, people hit and run all the time on public sites and the speed is poor as a result.
If they monitor ratios then doesnt that mean they are keeping logs?
Or do they monitor ratios another way?
If they monitor ratios then doesnt that mean they are keeping logs?
Or do they monitor ratios another way?
There would be no way of knowing, that would be down to their site.
Maybe they just keep tabs on your total upload/download or maybe they log each and every torrent and the ratio on each one you do.
Obviously the later would be very bad =(
If they monitor ratios then doesnt that mean they are keeping logs?
Its been a while since I have been on a private tracker but yes the one I was on kept logs, you could see all the users that where downloading the torrent, you could see their ratio & how many other torrents they where uploading/downloading. I imagine these could vary greatly per site but as most are based on having a good ratio they at least keep track of how much data you down/upload.
if, for example, maverick eye did use a private tracker, it would have had to accept that tracker's terms and conditions, and if those T&C's contained anything about people joining with intentions such as maverick eye, then wouldn't you/the site be in a position to sue maverick eye? or make the collected information not lawfully obtained and therefore not valid in court?
Not necessarily.. Eulas and the like are not legally enforcible. Which is why its legal to geododge with Netflix, despite the eula saying otherwise.
It becomes more clear when some t&c actually conflicts with actual law. Gathering info in the way you suggest wouldn't be illegally obtained, as the private torrent t&c isn't actually a legislature.
I wouldn't see private trackers as being any safer than public.
People mainly use private trackers for speed and because of this and the need to maintain ratios will also use seedboxes. They then run a VPN as well.
Those on public sites are generally not so well informed/ not required to keep a good ratio and because of this, easier to pick.
Just a heads up for all those people that haven't watched Dallas Buyers Club yet, you can watch it for free on SBS next month and it won't affect your download quota. It's amazing isn't it? You can legally watch this movie for free after all the wasted time and effort trying to prosecute viewers in the past year....
You can legally watch this movie for free after all the wasted time and effort trying to prosecute viewers in the past year....
I legally watched it for free at my neighbors house prior to it being released after his 8 yo daughter pirated it via an unsecured wifi operating close by.
It is going to aired on SBS 1 on their Friday & Saturday night Movie slot...
I legally watched it for free at my neighbors house prior to it being released after his 8 yo daughter pirated it via an unsecured wifi operating close by.
Love your work!
I legally watched it for free at my neighbors house prior to it being released after his 8 yo daughter pirated it via an unsecured wifi operating close by.
What a freakin' coincidence!!! Me too!!
I watched that crap and I want them to pay me for wasting a couple of hours of my life. Even the sex parts left me with a floppy disc and not a SSD to be seen.
yeah, i heard the movie was objectively crap. I won't be wasting my time.
Actually, 'compared' to other Voltage Picture releases it was, imho, ok. although not great.
Actually, 'compared' to other Voltage Picture releases it was, imho, ok. although not great.
If I offer to shoot you in your kneecap, that sounds pretty good compared to shooting you in the head. I suspect, however, that you would prefer I didn't shoot you at all.
Just a heads up for all those people that haven't watched Dallas Buyers Club yet, you can watch it for free on SBS next month and it won't affect your download quota. It's amazing isn't it? You can legally watch this movie for free after all the wasted time and effort trying to prosecute viewers in the past year....
Free as in broadcast rights paid by SBS using:
- tax payers money via consolidated revenue that goes towards paying for SBS' activities
- direct revenue raising by SBS (on screen advertisements and merchandise sales)
That sort of free? Gotcha.
Free as in broadcast rights paid by SBS using:
as in why would I want to watch it if I didn't want it in the first place??:)
yeah, i heard the movie was objectively crap. I won't be wasting my time.
Actually I thought it was a great movie. Good story, fantastic performances by Jared Leto and Matthew McConaughey (both deservedly winning Oscars for their performances). Definitely not a waste of time and worth watching.
Fantastic � I can't wait
they must have brought out a new version
they must have brought out a new version
Yep, Debbie does Dallas...buyer club.
Directions hearing schedule for 2/11 9:30am
https://www.comcourts.
DBC filled an Interlocutory Application on 24/09 � i suspect as Perram has scheduled a directions hearing rather than a Judgement hearing might indicate that he is prepared to lift the stay.
man, these guys don't give up!
I find the Dallas Buyers Club LLC witch hunt ironic because the show is about illegal pharmaceutical distribution.
DBC filled an Interlocutory Application on 24/09 � i suspect as Perram has scheduled a directions hearing rather than a Judgement hearing might indicate that he is prepared to lift the stay.
Interesting to see what this is all about. What nonsense has the DBC team come up with this time and what will iNet have to say. The judge should put this bed as they are simply abusing the court system to make money.
In any case the money sought by iNet to provide details might be either to high or to low so each team can appeal the final decision.
Directions hearing schedule for 2/11 9:30am
https://www.comcourts.
Interlocutory is a legal term which can refer to an order, sentence, decree, or judgment, given in an intermediate stage between the commencement and termination of a cause of action, used to provide a temporary or provisional decision on an issue.
12 days left.....
Interesting to see what this is all about. What nonsense has the DBC team come up with this time and what will iNet have to say.
My guess would be that DBC have filed an application to the court seeking to add additional heads of damages in addition to the 2 heads that Justice Perram has already approved. Seems as though Perram has called a directions hearing so that there could be further debate on submissions that have recently been made.
One of the interesting things now is since Perram made his Judgement mid August TPG has taken full ownership of iiNet.
iiNet is not the same iiNet that put up this fight, They now have a new board, new executive team and ultimately TPG now control the purse strings. Does iiNet even still have legal representation representing this case? time will tell.
it has widely been speculated that DBC will be seeking damages based on the the infringer making the film available for others to download and then consequent downloads from there on.
DBC Lawyer Michael Bradley recently said:
�Whether an individual should be liable for damages based on others activity is not a closed subject,� Bradley says. �So there may be a different way of approaching it and coming up with something [Justice Perram] is more comfortable with.�
The idea that file-sharers should somehow be held liable for the activities of other file-sharers is an extremely complex one that will be hard if not impossible to prove from a technical standpoint.
While it could be shown that file-sharer �A� entered a Dallas Buyers Club movie swarm before file-sharer �B�, there is no way of showing that �B� benefited in any way from the activity of �A�. DBC has no access to any information that proves information was shared between the two, or even between the two via third parties.
The company could take a broader view of course, and claim that all pirates were equally responsible for the resulting infringement in the swarm. But that amounts to each person being held responsible for their own infringement and the judge has already determined that to be the purchase price of the movie.
Instead of the common missionary style now they adopt the more appropriate "doggie" technique, in the end there still trying to #uck everybody. I see more and more why lawyers are hated. TPG would shoot themselves in both feet if they now abandon their new customer base by not further proving legal assistance and representation. They should know and appreciate how happy iNets customers have been with a company standing up for them and maintain the status quo.
further proving legal assistance and representation
iiNet have said they will provide advice and that's still on their website.
http://blog.iinet.net.au/wha
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét