It's a happy day for Aussie pirates: The Hollywood studio behind the film Dallas Buyers Club has abandoned its fight to extract huge sums of cash from alleged copyright infringers.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC had until midday Thursday to lodge a second appeal against an August Federal Court decision which effectively prevented it from engaging in so-called "speculative invoicing" in Australia.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC had until midday Thursday to lodge a second appeal against an August Federal Court decision which effectively prevented it from engaging in so-called "speculative invoicing" in Australia.
The good thing is the Australian government has stated that they wont be changing any laws after this decision . They must realise its total blackmail by DBC . The whole pay a fine based on your income or we will take you to court and you will lose everything is appalling and typical of the US justice system where it can be abused by corporations . Even kids were being targeted by DBC LLC. I'm glad that style of justice has been kicked into touch and will not be tolerated here in Australia. It will be a long time before another movie studio will have a crack at this , if ever. The precedent has been set in the Australian courts.
The precedent has been set in the Australian courts.
However the courts are likely to be overruled by provisions in the TPP.
However the courts are likely to be overruled by provisions in the TPP.
Possibly. The TPP must respect each countries rule of law. remember the corporation can only sue if a legislation is put into place which goes out of its way to hit a companies way of doing business and is profit. Would Big Hollywood be able to prove that downloads have impacted their profit so much ? Remember downloads are not a criminal offense and copyright laws existed before the TPP. Its only "new" laws (say if I am wring). The DBC case was decided under existing crown law and found to be wanting.
Thank god smoking is except from the TPP.
But IanD I suppose it will be tested.
Some of the poster on this thread might be interested to read this article from Clayton Utz � Implications of the Dallas Buyers Club v iiNet decisions
Thanks for the link.
The best part is the last paragraph.
"In the copyright space, one of the five judgments (Dallas Buyers Club v iiNet [2015] FCA 317) is new authority that agents for copyright owners can sue an infringer for copyright infringement on behalf of the owners. Justice Perram held that the Copyright Act did not expressly or by necessary implication override the "ordinary common law rule" that "what a person may do he may authorise another to do". His interpretation is unusual, since the Copyright Act only expressly gives copyright owners and exclusive licensees the right to sue for copyright infringement. It will be interesting to see if other courts follow his reasoning in the future."
His interpretation is unusual, since the Copyright Act only expressly gives copyright owners and exclusive licensees the right to sue for copyright infringement.
Yes
To me it seemed there was a threshold question in the case when DBC and Voltage were unable to identify to the court who the exact copyright holder was.
So if the exact plaintiff was not identified to the court then it was hard to see how the names of the potential defendants could be released to a party that might not have been the correct plaintiff.
To me it seemed there was a threshold question in the case when DBC and Voltage were unable to identify to the court who the exact copyright holder was.
I remember early in the proceedings iNet and Co. were arguing over this detail. It annoys me to no end Voltage setting up this shell company (standard practice it seems) to avoid any possible litigation infecting the parent company i.e. Voltage although using it to sue people over copyright issues. The copyright ownership was transferred to this shell company whereas as you have pointed out, there was some lost detail over who the real owner was of such rights.
However the courts are likely to be overruled by provisions in the TPP.
Only on new legislation not existing legislation . The TPP cannot over rule the current copy right laws.
I remember early in the proceedings iNet and Co. were arguing over this detail. It annoys me to no end Voltage setting up this shell company (standard practice it seems) to avoid any possible litigation infecting the parent company i.e. Voltage although using it to sue people over copyright issues. The copyright ownership was transferred to this shell company whereas as you have pointed out, there was some lost detail over who the real owner was of such rights.
The point about who actually owns the copyright is now being raised in USA.
https://torrentfreak.com/acc
It may be the company suing doesnt own the copyright.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét