What makes them sure that the account holders where actually the ones who downloaded this movie???? Friends can use my WIFI connections at home doesn't that mean I should read them the riot act before accessing my wifi network there be no downloading of movies, what if my next neighbors unlawfully accessed my wifi connection??it would be very hard to prove. It's not like getting caught for stealing a block of chocolate which you have stashed under you're shirt.
What makes them sure that the account holders where actually the ones who downloaded this movie????
They don't really care, they consider the account holder responsible for his network connection or its for him to identify the offender & not them.
What makes them sure that the account holders where actually the ones who downloaded this movie????..........
This has been discussed ad nauseum here. They want money pure and simple.
Yes they want to speculatively invoice account holders when they know their evidence is unlikely to hold up in court.
so, now we wait until next Wednesday huh?
As I said before they should hire a marketing professional instead of lawyers to draft the letters they send.
Possibly but they are after the same result no matter how they word it...and an intelligent judge would be able to see through the bullshit pretty easily. DBCs track record of blatant extortion has been enough to know how much they are after. They can't do that in Australia so they are trying to make up "licensing fees" to get money. Justice Perram has seen that these fees are close or equal to what would have been speculatively invoiced hence why he's so far rejected the requests. Opening up any dialogue with account holders no matter how friendly it may start with will always end with demands for excessive amounts.
Justice Perram has seen that these fees are close or equal to what would have been speculatively invoiced
I also wonder about this.
1. Has anyone ever approached DBC to buy an actual licensing fee � outside of the "threat of being sued" scenario?
2. In such cases, how much was the cost?
2. Does DBC actually "offer" this service, or is it just a non-existent product so they can mention it in legal proceedings?
I am always curious to see what will happen with the DBC claim.
My theory is that the litigation with high claims has been an unintended consequence of a highly productive US economy. If the claims for extraordinarily high compensation amounts take foot in Australia, then this will have some effect on motivation of the Australians to work harder and smarter like they do in the US. Which is a good thing, in my book.
I'm sure it was something that they made up so they could give the court a clear cut figure of how much they wanted from each person. Making a flat fee rather than demanding varying amounts of money like they have done in the past � as far as the Australian legal system goes, this was more likely to succeed than their usual tactics.
I don't think the wide distribution fee amount was released to the public but was to Justice Perram....guessing it was somewhere between 2k-5k?
A more realistic approach would have to created a "minor distribution fee" with a price tag of $250-$500 but as said a bazillion times in this thread, they are after big $$$, not appropriate amounts that everyday people can actually afford.
$500 x 30,000 total account holders total = $15m.
= A decent (but apparently not) payday for them
= Account holders learn their lesson without becoming bankrupt
I've said it before and I will say it again.
The law and Justice Perran will not allow the DBC/Vulture Pictures (deliberate misspelling) to profit from any actions taken before Australian Courts.
All that will be allowed is for them to be "made good" or "made whole."
That is a very simple principal of law.......so they will be put in a position as if the movie was rented or purchased legitimately.
That is all the damage they are entitled.
Plus costs of course.......but they would have to win the case first.....lol.
I've said it before and I will say it again.
This is all well and good although if your right then why is the judge letting these people abuse the court system?
This whole case should have ended the previous hearing before Wednesday past.
My guess is as much as DBC want to set a precedent and open the flood gates to speculative invoicing here in Oz, the Judge is being as thorough as possible so when the ruling is made, it will send a clear message to other unscrupulous, US, litigation addicted studios. Yes copyright infringement is wrong but extortion and blackmail is worse and not an accepted business practice here.
Yes copyright infringement is wrong but extortion and blackmail is worse and not an accepted business practice here.
Until the Trans-Pacific Partnership is in full effect. Then Australia is screwed.
That is a very simple principal of law.......so they will be put in a position as if the movie was rented or purchased legitimately.
Would this need to be applied as a retrospective cost at the time the movie was released, or as a present day cost?
Also, what quality level should be costed? I would guess that the copyright infringed media files that were available from torrents at the time would have been either CAM quality or at best sub-par DVD Screener extracts. IMO, it would be unreasonable to penalise copyright infringers the full price of a quality product (such as DVD or Bluray) when they infringed what could be best described as VCD quality. This is why I exhort the studios to release low quality versions of movies for a small fee that are better than CAM or Screener to stop copyright infringement and to provide a mechanism for enrichment of society for those who can not or would not go to the cinema. The whole point of copyright was as incentive for artists to continue to enrich society.
The price of a movie changes after its release and now can be "rented" for free on Netflix, so does it matter when the infringement was made? One could argue that there would be some people who would never watch DBC at the cinema, or purchase the DVD or Bluray, but would wait to see it for free legally on Netflix, so the studio was only ever going to receive the Netflix royalty. It seems disingenuous to demand more than that royalty fee from someone who infringed copyright as that was only ever the amount the studio would have received.
Would this need to be applied as a retrospective cost at the time the movie was released, or as a present day cost?
It really is inconsequential whether or not the damages are 5 cents or $30, they are certainly not going to exceed 3 figures, so it doesn't really matter when the calculation is made in this particular case, although I would say they are entitled to be made good at the time of the infringement as that seems to stand to reason.
I'm not a Lawyer I'm just a common person, isn't entrapment against the law?? They set up a specific date to entrap people in downloading the movie....
I'm not a lawyer either, so I'm prob wrong.
But i think entrapment is against the law in America but there are no such laws here in Australia.
I'm not a Lawyer I'm just a common person, isn't entrapment against the law?? They set up a specific date to entrap people in downloading the movie....
That would only be the case if they ENABLED you to commit the crime (eg. they were seeding the file you downloaded).
Besides � if you declare "entrapment", a) you're admitting you downloaded the file, and b) the onus would then be on YOU to prove they deliberately set you up t commit the infringement.
Fantastic !! Justice has prevailed.
I reckon the whole world was watching this outcome
Dallas Buyers' Club loses second bid to identify iiNet 'pirates'
ehh..it just means now they will have a excuse to be put on the access scheme for you meta data.
"Perram said there would also be no way for DBC to discover each individual infringer's uploading activity, meaning DBC could not claim damages under this head"
BINGO! Without this evidence it would be completely unjust to ask an account holder for a licence fee.
Dallas Buyers' Club loses second bid to identify iiNet 'pirates'
And they've been given the slapdown by Justice Perem.
The Irony is, is that Perram allowed DBC to access account holders accounts only on the proviso that speculative invoicing will not occur, and just to make sure he slapped them with a bond of $600000...Cost of buying the movie wasn't enough for these characters.
"Perram said there would also be no way for DBC to discover each individual infringer's uploading activity, meaning DBC could not claim damages under this head"
BINGO! Without this evidence it would be completely unjust to ask an account holder for a licence fee.
Yes, this caught my eye as well. The software only captures one in the stream not the data quantity as well. All they can say is when you were downloading nothing else. I don't think they will appeal considering their reluctance last time round due to the cost involved.
I've forgotten how to turn my seedbox back on....it's been that long...
Lol
i've often wondered why dallas buyers club? why not go after people who pirated the avengers or frozen??
i've often wondered why dallas buyers club? why not go after people who pirated the avengers or frozen??
Well Avengers (Marvel) were probably sitting on the sidelines watching the events, letting DBC bear the cost of the court case and seeing the outcome.
Good to see the judge actually making some sense instead of the usual dribble coming from the court system.
Finally, sanity prevails.
I hope they appeal and get hit with more costs when it is thrown out again.
Also shows the limitations inherent when using MaverickEye for quantitative data.
why not go after people who pirated the avengers or frozen??
These films made squillions at the box office, DBC tanked.
Oh, and Voltage Pictures are run by a bunch of Rex Hunts (sorry, no offence Rexxy).
Hopefully that is the last we hear from the scumbag corporate raiders at Dallas Buyers Club.
why not go after people who pirated <snip> frozen?
Maybe Disney's lawyers are smart and told them to "let it go".
Sorry, had to do it
DBC and their legal team had the perfect opportunity to set a precedent, and recover losses from the illegal downloading of their film. Instead greed got the better of them and they are now on track to get nothing.
I'd like to buy the judge a beer!
I'd like to buy the judge a beer!
No, just buy him a copy of the Dallas Buyers Club.
or send him a link to a torrent � no fear of being fined hahahahaha
Well now the big players will have a chat in the ears of the MP's on all sides of politics and the laws will get changed with as little fanfare as possible.
Big Business do lose battles but they rarely lose a war. They just have too much money and will play a much longer game.
The fact is when I pay for a bundle of games on Humble-Bundle, and then open the torrent (FYI the tracker is http://tracker.humblebundle.com:2710/announce) I'm connected as both a downloader-and-uploader; and I have no way of knowing whether other peers are accessing the torrent legally or not. I have one torrent where I downloaded the game, about 5GB, and I've uploaded over 25GB on the same torrent. That's content I've paid for � I'm not expected to upload it for others, but I like helping others have access so I just leave those torrents running. I'm certainly not expected to pay a licensing fee for others that are found to be accessing the tracker illegally, that would be ridiculous.
Also, I'm not told I can only download the game that I own once either. I can connect to the torrent and legally download it as many times as I need to in order to play it on one device at a time. So the very concept that each unique download requires a separate license is also wrong.
So what I'm saying is that DBC is not looking at how legal trackers work in the real world. They're looking at some fanatical hypothetical situation which just doesn't exist in the real world. The fact is if the people who downloaded DBC did so from a legal/licensed tracker as opposed to an illegal/unlicensed one, then they wouldn't be expected to pay anything for uploading the film for others. The only party liable for the damages of uploading is the tracker itself that allows people access to a torrent.
i've often wondered why dallas buyers club? why not go after people who pirated the avengers or frozen??
The company is DBC LLC, they are the ones that own the DBC film (like Blade Runner being owned by the Blade Runner Partnership). Avengers and Frozen, etc, are owned by other companies.
Well Avengers (Marvel) were probably sitting on the sidelines watching the events, letting DBC bear the cost of the court case and seeing the outcome.
The sceptic in me suspects that this case was fully funded by disney and co. Would there be anything illegal in this being the case?
why not go after people who pirated the avengers or frozen??
They make millions on merchandise alone. Piracy most likely works in their favour. The $15 DVD or the schoolbagandpencilcaseandlunch
The sceptic in me suspects that this case was fully funded by disney and co. Would there be anything illegal in this being the case?
No chance of Disney being involved. If anything a group of porn companies would be more likely as they are the ones who do much of the speculative invoicing in the US. Australia would have been a very lucrative market for them.
It is the media coverage I don't understand.
The case was won and the copyright holders are fully entitled to be compensated for any losses through legal action.
This is not a win for piracy but rather a full endorsement of copyright protection.
I would love to see more coverage of the blind greed and absurd claims of the copyright holders to invade privacy and to make more from legal action than any "lost" sales may have cost them.
Why not go after the down loaders of India??? I think we no know the answer to that question.
These films made squillions at the box office, DBC tanked.
DBC was actually a financial success � made over $50 million.
Not that I've watched it � I refuse to because of this malarchy!
So DBC can still get the cost of the film to buy say 20 dollars from downloaders and added monies say court costs of a few hundred if they comply with court orders ? They may do that before Feb 16 or get nothing ?
The case was won and the copyright holders are fully entitled to be compensated for any losses through legal action.
This is not a win for piracy but rather a full endorsement of copyright protection.
No. This is a preliminary discovery hearing. Nothing can be "won" except some names and addresses.
So DBC can still get the cost of the film to buy say 20 dollars from downloaders and added monies say court costs of a few hundred if they comply with court orders ? They may do that before Feb 16 or get nothing ?
They wouldn't bother as the amount would be very small. If hypothetically anyone receive one of these claims you would simply bin it as the costs involved in court action would moot their initial claim. The end claim they could make would be under $100. They are after minimum 1K per person, now multiply this by 4700 and then add Optus/Telstra, another 21000 IP addresses and you can see why there simply here to "teach" naughty people not to download.
What now for the prestigious one man law firm known as Marquise Lawyers.
Bankruptcy?
What now for the prestigious one man law firm known as Marquise Lawyers.
Bankruptcy?
Why would he declare bankruptcy? He'd still get his fees from Voltage (his client), same as with any other company a lawyer represents.
It's Voltage & their hip pocket who are hurting. They have to pay costs (i.e. both sides' lawyers).
Why would he declare bankruptcy? He'd still get his fees from Voltage (his client), same as with any other company a lawyer represents.
It's Voltage & their hip pocket who are hurting. They have to pay costs (i.e. both sides' lawyers).
You're making a number of assumptions there.
Are you sure the lawyer has not negotiated a percentage of all receipts he can extort from alleged infringers and are you sure Voltage/DBC are picking up the tab?
I think any agreement that has been negotiated between the lawyer and the copyright holder will remain confidential unless ordered by a court to be disclosed.
Unless of course the law firm enters administration and then the deal may become public domain.
It's Voltage & their hip pocket who are hurting. They have to pay costs (i.e. both sides' lawyers).
This what happens when you piss off and try to outsmart justice Perram. He granted them the right to discovery and right to claim monies of a realistic and fair amount. Yet they keep arguing about something that he has already ruled on.
You can't sugarcoat "speculative invoicing" and call it a "licence fee"
No. This is a preliminary discovery hearing. Nothing can be "won" except some names and addresses.
True but the end result of what would happen after discovery has been discussed in detail by the courts with limitations being put on what DBC can and can't do
You're making a number of assumptions there.
Are you sure the lawyer has not negotiated a percentage of all receipts he can extort from alleged infringers and are you sure Voltage/DBC are picking up the tab?
I think you're also making an assumption that they'll get a % of takings from the speculative invoicing.
At best, I'd suggest they take a portion of each � a set fee + % of future earnings. Would be very unusual (not to mention risky) to go "all-in" on a speculative % only.
Regardless, yes, only time will tell. But I think "bankruptcy" is a bit presumptuous, that's all. :-)
My guess is that Voltage studios has given specific orders to their Australian Lawyers that stipulate all charges are born to them with the proviso that any monies collected would be split up 50/50. Here the Lawyers obviously are 'pushed' to perform and as a reward collect big provided they hit the jackpot. All told some 28000 Ip addresses.
So far though, they collect Zippity do da. (legal term).
Wouldn't surprise me if MPAA/RPAA/Hollywood was backing Voltage to some extent as well.
Is the movie any good ? :-}
Wouldn't surprise me if MPAA/RPAA/Hollywood was backing Voltage to some extent as well.
They don't work like that. If inclined they would contact their local Congressman/Senator or their contacts in Washington and force the Government to apply pressure down here to change any laws and so on � Like their doing with the TPP. That document (manifesto) has big US corporate business stink all over it, that's why it was written/formulated surreptitiously.
Yes it's very good. Won 3 Oscars and nominated for 2 more
Is the movie any good ? :-}
No. Those who paid to see it should get a refund. It was one of the first movies on Stan, Netflix AU and Presto when they launched which says all you need to know.
I bought a new DVD copy in a bargain bin this year for $5.95. What a waste.
Won 3 Oscars and nominated for 2 more
which means nothing because of the voting system for them.
Is the movie any good ? :-}
Just because it won an oscar doesn't make it a great movie...Boogie Nights now that's one movie that should have won a load of oscars, can't have the academy praising a movie based on the porn industry, but didn't TITANIC which was shit movie won it that year.
The movie that will be made, the true to life story of a copyright troll trying to spec invoice Australian Mum's and Dad's, will be much better.
I bought a new DVD copy in a bargain bin this year for $5.95. What a waste.
The studio in question has made a lot of substandard productions although this film together with 'The Company You Keep' are the better offerings from Voltage. To describe the film as waste or crap is really stretching it. If you think it's a waste I'll like to hear your opinion on Hollywood's normal fare.
There's a decent article in the Sydney Morning Herald:
"The most effective weapon against piracy is to offer people timely access to content at a fair price. This argument is supported by the fact that Netflix traffic dwarfs BitTorrent traffic, even though you could download everything that's on Netflix for free from The Pirate Bay."
How is it that everyone, even the small copyright owners sees this, and yet the MPAA & other "big copyright companies" don't?
"The most effective weapon against piracy is to offer people timely access to content at a fair price. This argument is supported by the fact that Netflix traffic dwarfs BitTorrent traffic, even though you could download everything that's on Netflix for free from The Pirate Bay."
.........................................FAIR PRICE.
This is the reason why the big boys don't like it or 'see' it. Why play fair when you can rip off people and make more. Remember who runs Hollywood.
Fair price is determined by the market, but I totally agree that parallel importing should be unrestricted � and looks like it's about to finally happen following that government's competition review (the Harper Report � see sect.'s 31 & 13 of the response).
Publishers never wanted us to have public libraries you know. I think that's what people keep forgetting in this thread is, and the Judge said it himself, some of the ways people could access DBC legally are at no cost (or no revenue to Voltage). Whereas Voltage wants to argue that everyone would have bought the DVD � instead of say the digital copy which would be valued at much less.
What now for the prestigious one man law firm known as Marquise Lawyers.
Bankruptcy?
There's the old saying � the only clear winners in any courtroom battle are the lawyers.
There's the old saying � the only clear winners in any courtroom battle are the lawyers.
I have a gut feeling this time around it may not be the case.....
Marque Lawyers may become Farqued Lawyers.
I have a gut feeling this time around it may not be the case.....
Marque Lawyers may become Farqued Lawyers.
I doubt it. They have a broad and diverse list of clients. They have also been a solvent law firm for many years. I don't think this ruling will affect them to the extent you are proposing (as much as we'd all love to see them eating dog biscuits on the street corner to survive).
ome of the ways people could access DBC legally are at no cost (or no revenue to Voltage). Whereas Voltage wants to argue that everyone would have bought the DVD � instead of say the digital copy which would be valued at much less.
Yep it will be out on mainstream TV pretty soon so Voltages argument that everyone would have bought the DVD is pure invention.
Common sense thing to do now is for Voltage to cut their losses and bugger off.
If not their only option left is to appeal to a higher court, of which I think Judge Perram said he would recuse himself.
Given the money spent it wouldn't surprise me if they did this as a last ditch hail mary, but cannot see this being overturned on any grounds.
Wonder if common sense will prevail?
(as much as we'd all love to see them eating dog biscuits on the street corner to survive)
Hear hear!
Wonder if common sense will prevail?
Nope. More people will pirate more of their material in protest perhaps but not much else, I dare say.
it will be out on mainstream TV pretty soon
It's been on Stan, Presto and Netflix AU pretty much from when they started streaming earlier this year.
so Voltages argument that everyone would have bought the DVD is pure invention.
Yep of course. Designed to net them the maximum return on their litigation. Did I say litigation? I meant harassment.
Not that I've watched it � I refuse to because of this malarchy!
While the subject may have been of moderate interest, that's me too, I won't watch it because I don't want to encourage scumbags worse than pirates.
Heard that the case will be closed in February since Village Roadshow is giving the courts a "run for their money"
We have to wait and see, but it does look as if DBC is going to give up at this stage. They don't want to issue a bond and obey the court order. They wanted to alter the conditions of the court order to exploit more "damages", and I'm pleased so see that request was thrown out. Don't get me wrong, I think DBC is entitled to actual damages, but determining what those are is very difficult and it won't be the same person-to-person.
As an example � when I heard about the 4k remaster of Robocop I downloaded it off a torrent. I already own it on VHS, and 3x different DVD releases and I wanted to see how it looked. I was impressed by what I saw (I didn't watch the film I just viewed a few short bits in it), and so I ordered it from Amazon. I never actually watched the torrent.
So let's say that MGM tracks me down and contacts me � all I'd say to them is "yes I downloaded it, had a peek, deleted it and bought the bluray. You have no damages, get off my case." Out of the 4,726 people who downloaded DBC, there would be some who never viewed the movie at all. And there would be some who did view it, but also bought the DVD or Bluray or Digital release. Yes it may not make downloading it in the first place 100% legal, but it mitigates against any potential damages.
This is the whole problem with putting an arbitrary value on an illegally torrented movie. If DBC LLC are to be believed then every one of the 4,726 who downloaded it illegally didn't own a copy, viewed the whole movie, and if they weren't able to access the unauthorised torrent they would have bought the DVD legally.
Give me a break.
I think DBC have given up, it's the Lawyers who haven't. They are the ones who get to PROFIT the most. After all is done and the monies collected are converted to US dollars Voltage studios see very little.
I remember reading a study in the Napster days regards music downloading. a very large pool of people said that they only download stuff because it's simply there, many did not listen to their downloads and many would not purchase it if no other means were available.
The bottom feeding crowd down here are only interested in making out that the downloaders were secretly banding together to destroy Voltage studios using bit torrent software and this necessitates a very large damages bill/fine. The article posted further up proves that people by and large have migrated over to (Paid) Netflix and have abandoned Torrenting. It's all about fairness and an 'easy to view' model. Someone forgot to tell the Lawyers.
a very large pool of people said that they only download stuff because it's simply there, many did not listen to their downloads and many would not purchase it if no other means were available.
Exactly. And as a recent TorrentFreak article reports:
Russia's telecoms watchdog says that the country's top 15 most popular torrent sites will be permanently blocked in 2016. The news follows a national survey carried out last week which revealed that four out of ten torrent users use the protocol to avoid paying, while almost as many do so for other reasons, including content availability.
Ah so only 37% of people who use torrents in Russia do so to avoid paying. And they may not use torrents for that exclusive purchase. I don't know what the percentage is for Aussies, but it's certainly not 100% who use torrents to avoid paying for entertainment!
As an example � when I heard about the 4k remaster of Robocop I downloaded it off a torrent. I already own it on VHS, and 3x different DVD releases and I wanted to see how it looked. I was impressed by what I saw (I didn't watch the film I just viewed a few short bits in it), and so I ordered it from Amazon. I never actually watched the torrent.
Who cares if you watched it or not? It is not relevant to the calculation of damages.
Who cares if you already have purchased a different version of the same work? It is not relevant to the calculation of damages.
You uploaded it and distributed it therefore you infringed copyright.
The calculation of damages is not all that difficult....Justice Perrum worked it out pretty easily.
That's rubbish, I have a number of HumbleBundle torrents that I've paid for and uploaded more than the download (one I've upload more than 5x the size of the game). Am I the distributor of the game? Or just a legitimate peer on the torrent? I only have to pay for the copy ONCE, and I'm allowed to download it from the torrent as many times as I need to. They don't care one bit how much I upload or don't upload. All they care is if the users paid for the games or not (and honestly, who would steal from humblebundle?) Individual uploads are a meaningless number. As for MGM I didn't upload anything on that torrent so the point is moot (maybe a tiny fraction of a copy). I'm not interested in giving people free access to something I'm willing to pay for.
My point was I wouldn't have bought the BD unless I saw for myself the quality first because I already owned it on another format. Not that the other format entitled me in any way to the 4k remaster.
Perrum, if you'll remember, wasn't interested in the uploads when calculating damages. That would allow DBC LLC to collect damages TWICE from each individual download (for example user X downloaded one copy and uploaded one copy to user Y, but DBC wants the damages from users X and Y for downloading one copy each PLUS an addition amount from user X for uploading one copy as well).
Perrum, if you'll remember, wasn't interested in the uploads when calculating damages.
Its not rubbish. When you buy a DVD or Bluray you are purchasing a license. You will need to read that license and then tell me if it allows you to download/upload other versions....Does it? Hmmm. If you do something outside of the terms of the license then you may be infringing copyright.
The accounts were flagged for copyright infringement and determined that an infringement of copyright had occurred as a result of the accounts uploading activity, not downloading activity.
The only reason I can see that the uploading is not calculated as part of the damages is that DBC/Voltage are unable to quantify it....
The accounts were flagged for copyright infringement and determined that an infringement of copyright had occurred as a result of the accounts uploading activity, not downloading activity.
Exactly
The uploading is how the logging software obtains the IP addresses.
Hmmm. If you do something outside of the terms of the license then you may be infringing copyright.
I didn't say that it doesn't "infringe copyright". Copyright laws are well outdated and are in need of reform. In my example there are no damages to MGM. I didn't watch the illegitimate copy (other than to see the quality), and I bought the retail product.
As for the "terms of the license" � that's rubbish. Look up Video Retailers Assoc. et. al. V Warner et. al. There are other cases as well that set a precedent in Australia that rights holder cannot demand more rights beyond what rights the copyright legislation affords them. For example, I have a Sony Bluray in front of me, and in the fine text it says "unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance, radio or TV broadcast of this BLU-RAY is prohibited." However, Video Retailers Assoc. V Warner already established that the individuals or corporations can freely lend, re-sell, or hire out their individual copies of home media, and that Warner were not allowed to print on their packaging terms that said that doing so was not allowed. The cover of this particular Bluray that I'm looking at clearly breaches what the rights holder is allowed to say on the cover of the DVD as established in Video Retailers Assoc. V Warner. And in fact seeing this I will lodge a formal written complaint against Sony for illegally suggesting that people are not allowed to lend or hire out their DVDs.
So as I said before, the terms that they write on the DVD cover are completely meaningless. Their rights come from the Copyright Act (1968), they can't demand any other rights.
Now you're perfectly right that the way that the peers were identified was through their uploading of pieces of the torrent. Yes that's right, but Perrum isn't allowing DBC LLC to go after them for that, only for downloading one copy illegally, and he wants DBC LLC to be made whole.
Perrum, if you'll remember, wasn't interested in the uploads when calculating damages.
Dallas Buyers Club did ask the judge to allow greater damages based on uploading. So they could use the $150,000 in damages figure on people to encourage them to settle. He just didn't go along with it. people just got lucky because bittorrent is all about sharing not just downloading.
Honestly if people dodge DBC thanks to the judge in this instance, if people are still torrenting after all this they are bloody stupid
Honestly if people dodge DBC thanks to the judge in this instance, if people are still torrenting after all this they are bloody stupid
using public trackers without a VPN is many levels of stupid I can't quite comprehend.
The accounts were flagged for copyright infringement and determined that an infringement of copyright had occurred as a result of the accounts uploading activity, not downloading activity.
not downloading? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.
The only reason I can see that the uploading is not calculated as part of the damages is that DBC/Voltage are unable to quantify it....
And that DBC/Voltage does not have an upload license available to purchase so their claims to any monetary value on such are moot.
if people are still torrenting after all this they are bloody stupid
Does this mean that I should immediately close down my Debian DVD torrents that I am helping to seed? Would failing to do so make me bloody stupid?
not downloading? I find that incredibly difficult to believe
Its correct.
If you read the court transcripts you will see this is exactly the case, so if you do not upload the trolls are currently not interested in you. This is how their monitoring software Maverick Eye works and this is their only evidence of copyright infringement.
If you read the court transcripts you will see this is exactly the case, so if you do not upload the trolls are currently not interested in you.
And if no one uploads, everyone complains their torrents are slow to download..... but makes sense.
The idea was by copyright holders to share something, someone must upload initially. and it still doesn't work to their advantage anyway, since the court protects us. As usual,its all about money..
I don't think its anything about being "fair" ...That's only on the record because it sounds like equal sides. but they want to really wants to bust all out ***..
If the court wasn't involved, and/or was settled out off court we'd all be screwed. Why do you think they keep sitting on this for so long and keep stalling ?
its their job to find loopholes in stuff like this...... That's all lawyers/governments do. and it's my job to avoid these *** :)
This is how their monitoring software Maverick Eye works and this is their only evidence of copyright infringement.
This is correct, they cannot determine what amount you downloaded or upload to others ONLY that you have uploaded something. This is why Vulture studios and miscellaneous (lawyers) tried to add works by other copyright holders uploaded by the individual as an additional damage amount. Without this they have almost nothing. It's impossible to tell someone who is on dial up and down/up loaded for 45min to someone on say NBN speeds doing the same for 6 hours. Different courses for different horses. DBC know this and this is the reason for the planned questionnaire, self incrimination � without people admitting quilt they have very little ground to stand on.
This is the whole problem with putting an arbitrary value on an illegally torrented movie. If DBC LLC are to be believed then every one of the 4,726 who downloaded it illegally didn't own a copy, viewed the whole movie, and if they weren't able to access the unauthorised torrent they would have bought the DVD legally.
I don't think DBC will see it that way
All they are interested if someone shared it .... they don't care weather u've actually viewed anything,
It would be different depending on who's shared the full movie, but what will DBC do? charge u half the cost because u only uploaded half the movie ?
After all, u can't even buy half a dvd can you ... physical, or digital.. doesn't matter.. its still a movie.
why in the digital world we must treat everything different ?
I think that's reasonable... but i'm kind of with the judge as well. Maybe DBC dies want much more money and not just the full cost..
I have been reading through the judgement from Justice Perram and found out the reasoning for the $600,000 bond � "I also required DBC to lodge with the Court a bond of $600,000 to secure its obedience to its undertaking as to the demands it would make of account holders before I would release the account holders� information. I did this since it has no assets within the jurisdiction which could be forfeited if it breached its undertaking."
DBC has no assets in Australia and is therefore has no authority in the jurisdiction known as the Commonwealth of Australia. As for the letters they wanted to send, I finally got copies of those as Mashable prevented downloading of the files and watermarked them � always a way. Im sure there will be no further events in relation to DBC.
DBC has no assets in Australia and is therefore has no authority in the jurisdiction known as the Commonwealth of Australia.
Okay that part is not true. International IP including copyrights are recognised by treaties. If you write a book tomorrow and have it published in print, you have every right to enforce your copyright to the ends of the earth in every country that is signatory to the relevant treaties.
The criticisms I level toward copyright laws is that they favour publishers, not artists.
DBC are primarily going after their own IP, I don't see a huge problem with that, what I see a problem with is the fact that as the Judge noted there are several ways to legally view a copyrighted work, including those that yield no (or next to no) royalties to the owners, such as libraries.
Okay that part is not true. International IP including copyrights are recognised by treaties. If you write a book tomorrow and have it published in print, you have every right to enforce your copyright to the ends of the earth in every country that is signatory to the relevant treaties.
Look I'm not going off topic but lets just say not every law and treaty is legal � as in the true meaning. Big difference between legal and lawful. Justice Perram has said they have no assets in Australia, then Dallas Blackmail Club try to insult Justice Perram by trying to bargain down the bond amount. If I was Justice Perram, I would have dismissed it all by now.
The criticisms I level toward copyright laws is that they favour publishers, not artists.
Of course, because of the corrupt system. I recommend everyone should read the true history of copyright and how it's being used to milk the system � http://questioncopyright.org/promise.
DBC are primarily going after their own IP, I don't see a huge problem with that,
They own nothing, they are merely a controlling agent of others work.
Read the Judgement here: http://www.judgments.fedcourt
then Dallas Blackmail Club try to insult Justice Perram by trying to bargain down the bond amount.
No they didn't, they asked if they could receive 10% of the customer details for 10% of the bond. It was a fair enough request, but one that was denied.
No they didn't, they asked if they could receive 10% of the customer details for 10% of the bond. It was a fair enough request, but one that was denied.
Justice Perram made the conditions clear. You don't then turn around and try to bargain. I would have had them for contempt of court.
You don't then turn around and try to bargain.
They weren't trying to bargain. The bond was set for the entire disclosure, DBC then asked for disclosure of a subset for the appropriate amount. Their request was denied, but as I did say it was fair enough to make � it certainly wasn't "insulting" or some grand attempt at larceny as you've made it out to be.
They weren't trying to bargain. The bond was set for the entire disclosure, DBC then asked for disclosure of a subset for the appropriate amount.
And Justice Perram said he was not happy with their approach. It should not have been done by Dallas Blackmail Club. In the end it's all failed � DBC is just a show and they don't care if they win or lose, it's all about a frame of mind.
In the end it's all failed � DBC is just a show and they don't care if they win or lose, it's all about a frame of mind.
Huh? That doesn't make sense to me. Of course they care.
They attempted to make a profit from a business model that extorts money from innocent people....enough said.
No what they tried to do was buy fear and a bigger stick to try and intimidate people in to not downloading illegal torrents.
They failed and if anything it backfired on them. It has proven the Australian courts can not be bought as cheaply as the US ones.
The bond was set for the entire disclosure, DBC then asked for disclosure of a subset for the appropriate amount.
In fairness, however, DBC did go after the entirety of the uploader list as a single case. If they were happy to take all the uploaders as a single group for the purposes of the case then it would not really be right to try later splitting the group apart in an effort to save money. If that was their true intention they should have done this at the very beginning.
10% of 600,000 bond is 60,000
If I was Justice Perram, I would have dismissed it all by now.
Tomorrows news: Justice Perram trolls trolls by dragging it out, costing them a fortune.
hes my hero!
Tomorrows news: Justice Perram trolls trolls by dragging it out, costing them a fortune.
hes my hero!
Imagine if this were true, talk about real justice.
I've finally watched it on NETFLIX, I've founded it hard to sympathize with Matthews Character....
I've finally watched it on NETFLIX, I've founded it hard to sympathize with Matthews Character....
No you didn't, you downloaded it and now your stuffed, DBC is after you for big money.
One week to go. It will be interesting to see if they pull another rabbit out of their collective ##se.
Their only option is to appeal the latest decision and claim further damages along the way. Who knows, they could claim the worlds economic problems on those 4700 odd people for downloading this film.
No updates as of yet, looks like it will be tossed out. The lawyers are milking this for all it's worth. Dallas Blackmail Club.
Well DBC have until Feb 11, so one one week to go.
Quote
The judge has made an order to terminate the entire proceedings by February 11 next year, unless DBC LLC makes further applications prior to that date.
Should DBC LLC fail to act, the entire case will come to an end.
Haven't been able to read into it much, but with the signing of the TPP by Australia, will that influence these types of cases, and affect the outcome of this case?
Haven't been able to read into it much, but with the signing of the TPP by Australia, will that influence these types of cases, and affect the outcome of this case?
Non retrospective.
Non retrospective
Hopefully that does not mean that DBC can start the whole circus again under TPP legislation?
Hopefully that does not mean that DBC can start the whole circus again under TPP legislation?
Whatever this corporation induced and biased TPP will end up looking like will not be a cover for deeds committed in the past (from my understanding), it will come into effect on the day and affect from there onwards. This DBC nonsense will be relegated to the past.
Dallas buyers club movies on nubetube, keeps popping up.
Dallas buyers club movies on nubetube, keeps popping up.
Wondering if this is DBC or their lawyers posting files,
so people might download them ...
so they can drum up more "business" ...
DBC ... not in the movie-making business, only making movies to generate legal business ...
DBC ... not in the movie-making business, only making movies to generate legal business ...
This is interesting regarding TPP http://fusion.net/story/26509
This is interesting regarding TPP http://fusion.net/story/26509
It seems to me that any legal procedure that can involve a very significant percentage of the population and make free with their wallets is going to be seen as entirely anti-social and unapplicable.
http://www.zdnet.com/articl
The TPP is illegal and is not legally enforceable without the approval of the people under Commonwealth Law. Legal and Lawful are two completely different things.
The TPP is hypocritical in attempting to foster easier data transport across member states boundaries for telecommunications, whilst supporting the monopolistic restriction of entertainment data via copyright and DRM.
The percentage of the population requiring cheaper roaming when traveling internationally is a minority compared to the percentage making use of entertainment.
If the TPP is ratified, it will be the biggest blunder for Australia in history, dwarfing the previous defense contracts and MTM and only benefiting a minimum percentage of the population. Effectively Australians would have no legal protection against the likes of DBC.
I wouldn't be surprised if accessing international Netflix and other streaming providers became illegal under the TPP.
Yes I just saw that too.
More of the same here:
http://mashable.com/201
"It's certainly a disappointing outcome for them. It doesn't do anything to mitigate the infringement that's going on � it's not a particularly satisfactory outcome from that point of view,.........."
Off course a satisfactory outcome would have been to fleece and extort thousands from people so these arseholes could continue to wear those shiny gangster suits.
On a completely unrelated note:
http://www.news.com.au/
Another beer for the good judge.
On a completely unrelated note:
http://www.news.com.au/
Yeah when it's put like that it is really uncanny timing isn't it? Right when Netflix decides to start enforcing regional non-global libraries, TPB and KAT decide to offer world-wide streaming of their entire indexed libraries. Hopefully it puts pressure on Netflix and co to offer a world-wide service again.
Also I'm glad to see DBC have given up their endeavour. Clearly they were not satisfied with the prospect of asking for only the cost of the film, and wanted to extort account holders for unreasonable damages as happens in the USA. I'm a bit baffled by the statement that "Hypothetically, if you chose to seek a single name and address rather than a large number in order to write to that person, the court probably would not feel the same need to intervene in a process they aren't normally involved in" (Michael Bradley of Marque Lawyers) � perhaps he's forgotten that Australia has pretty strict privacy laws, and a process of "discovery" is absolutely a matter for court. Handing over private details of customers, even just their postcode, even to their spouse, would open ISPs to the potential for a class action lawsuit against them by customers.
I mean imagine this � Person A is stalking Person B. Person A gets person B's IP address by placing hotlinks to a tracking url of theirs on social media. Person A then sends a letter for discovery to the ISP. And it could get even worse. Let's say this is someone who Person B has a restraining order against. These kind of cases have happened in the past, not with ISPs to my knowledge, but with other businesses that have failed to guard their customer's legal rights to privacy.
A customer might even have a restraining order against DBC, or some other company. Heck I know of a case where someone had a restraining order against the ACT police. That restraining order had some interesting conditions attached to it as you might imagine!
Anyway this is why we have privacy laws, so that well-meaning companies don't put people's safety at risk through otherwise innocuous communication.
Just in.
https://torrentfreak.com/
Dallas Buyers Club has finally given up on its mission to demand cash settlements from alleged movie pirates in Australia. It's believed the company has made large amounts of money from the activity in other jurisdictions but will not do so Down Under after failing to convince a judge it would not engage in so-called "speculative invoicing."
It's believed the company has made large amounts of money from the activity in other jurisdictions but will not do so Down Under after failing to convince a judge
Maybe judges in other jurisdictions were more amenable to entertainment industry bribes, donations, political pressure, Rupert Murdoch "dinners", etc....
Will I ever be able to find out if I was was one of the 4,726?
Will I ever be able to find out if I was was one of the 4,726?
They will still send the letter as a token of appreciation. NOT.
Wouldn't that information be put through the cyber shredder by now????
It's over; http://www.itnews.com.au/news
Stories all over... If DBC gave up on "Australia" why would we need a store giving up on iinet ?
iinet is PART of Australia. despite it being separate story.
I liked the story on TF..... i read it as "DBC decided to give up" that's not actually true.... the judge would of thrown out the case anyway by now, which is "by force" not by a decision by a DBC... But it gets attention.
It's over; http://www.itnews.com.au/news
In retrospect, granting DBC the right to recover the cost of purchase of a licensed medium ($20) would not be reasonable, because that retail cost includes profit to companies in the retail chain other than DBC who are not litigating against the defendant. In effect, DBC would be paid more than what they would otherwise have received if the defendant had purchased a licensed medium in the first place and "stealing" the profit that would otherwise have accrued to the retail chain partners. Would it be legal for the courts to aid and abet DBC from stealing from the other retail chain members, in pursuing restitution?
In retrospect, granting DBC the right to recover the cost of purchase of a licensed medium ($20) would not be reasonable, because that retail cost includes profit to companies in the retail chain other than DBC who are not litigating against the defendant.
Yes, I agree. However to be considered is that DBC may negotiate other income from the DVD � for instance they may be paid for the trailers they put on the DVD for other movies.
It was blackmail � plain and simple. They tried to change the orders of the bond and it backfired big time. Pretty simple.
Maybe judges in other jurisdictions were more amenable to entertainment industry bribes, donations, political pressure, Rupert Murdoch "dinners", etc..
So the Australian Judge involved in this case referred to the Australian Consumer Law regarding deceptive conduct to stop the speculative invoicing, since they often read like a scam (or you could say it IS a scam).
Could it be that other jurisdictions don't have similar Consumer Protection laws against misleading or deceptive conducts, such as the US and UK? (tongue in cheek).
bye bye copyright trolls!
Humanity won this battle :-). The best part is that pirates had the opportunity to prepare VPNs, seedboxes, proxies and other means of hiding their IP from the swarm so the next attempts by copyright trolls should be utterly pointless. Perhaps they will now think that there is less pirates in Australia as they won't see as many Australian IPs and therefore somehow think they've achieved something.
Well it looks like it's all over folks.
Case closed.
There's 'case closed', and then there's 'case closed' :)
Just hoping they don't obtain aussie IP addressed via Datacenter log files.. Even though VPN providers don't log, someone somewhere is our real IP.
Just hoping they don't obtain aussie IP addressed via Datacenter log files.. Even though VPN providers don't log, someone somewhere is our real IP.
They already have the IP addresses.
Don't most people have dynamic IP addresses? Wh would I care if someone had an IP address I had for 24 hours about a year ago?
All IP addresses are trackable. Dynamic doesn't mean u can't be tracked.
Dynamic doesn't mean u can't be tracked.
However it does generally mean they require the co-operation of the ISP involved to track who had that IP at the time in question.
Makes it harder with a dynamic IP that's alll..... Meanwhile, i have a static IP...
All IP addresses are trackable.
Trackable back to the IP owner but not necessarily the user, for this reason many VPN's will share an IP among a number of users.
Which is why DBC originally went to court to force the ISP's to hand over the contact details of the people who they detected with a particular IP address at a particular time.
As the ISP will log theses details, typically along with data usage � for the purposes of calculating how much of peoples monthly data allocation has been used.
After DBC failed to lodge an appeal by the required date, all copyright holders move back to square 1 where they would have to start over and lodge a case in the courts to reveal peoples contact details.
Of course now that precedent has been set in the DBC case then it is likely future cases would result in the same outcome � being forced to hand over a large sum of money as bond to ensure they don't attempt to do speculative invoicing.
However it does generally mean they require the co-operation of the ISP involved to track who had that IP at the time in question.
Dynamic or static makes no difference on needing help.
Regardless of what kind of address, static or dynamic they only have a bunch of numbers and have to get the user details from the isp.
I'd love to know how much this whole debacle costed the dbc/lawyers. They've probably made VPN companies a lil wealthier anyway..
There's 'case closed', and then there's 'case closed' :)
+ 1
Agree, see this article ...
http://www.itnews.com.au/
The comment by Michael Bradley from Marque Lawyers that makes me wonder is ...
"But I suppose if a distributor who was local wanted to have a try, then they presumably wouldn't face the same difficulty with security. You might get a different outcome."
So if DBC were to find/appoint a local distributor for their next movie release, could they then bankroll the court costs of the "local distributor" to try and get around this point?
This was one of the key reasons why they did not succeed.
"But I suppose if a distributor who was local wanted to have a try, then they presumably wouldn't face the same difficulty with security. You might get a different outcome."
They just face the hurdle of copyright. Not an insignificant hurdle either because if it were that simple local copyright trolls would just become copyright holders for the purposes of speculative invoicing/extortion.
So if DBC were to find/appoint a local distributor for their next movie release, could they then bankroll the court costs of the "local distributor" to try and get around this point?
This was one of the key reasons why they did not succeed.
Well didnt they appoint a local distributor? I was under the impression they had and that distributor paid $25,000 for those rights. But it didnt make them the copyright holder. Clearly this would only work if the distributor is the copyright holder for all legal purposes, which I doubt would be the case.
I don't realistically see it happening, not a large scale anyway.
When the DBC downloading occured, streaming services like netflix weren't available (exception of geoblocking). This case has also made australian pirates aware that they aren't bulletproof � VPN usage has skyrocketted.
Marque Lawyers would have known that the DBC case was their big and possibly last shot to make some real $$$ as there were nearly 30,000 australian IP addresses caught in the sting.
Michaels statement would have to also assume that this local distributor would be happy to engage in extortion (yep im guessing it would be backed by voltage), after all. The verdict wasnt about security...DBC won the right to the names and addresses early on. It was their intentions that were clearly out of order.
The verdict wasnt about security...DBC won the right to the names and addresses early on. It was their intentions that were clearly out of order.
+1
If they hadn't tried to rip people by using their speculative invoicing model and also by trying to claim extra settlement amounts from people based on what else they admitted to downloading and how much they earned then this case would have been over and done with. The court granted them discovery but placed a stay on it until satisfied they wouldn't speculatively invoice people which they clearly wanted to do. If DBC had accepted the Justice's rulings and only charged infringer's a reasonable sum to "make good" their perceived financial losses they would have "won". That wasn't good enough for these hyenas...
The judgement is aligned with the rightscorp business model � with their modest settlement figures. I wonder if they will start operating in Aus now...
So if DBC were to find/appoint a local distributor for their next movie release, could they then bankroll the court costs of the "local distributor" to try and get around this point?
This was one of the key reasons why they did not succeed.
The issue with security was to do with the fact DBC are not an Australian based entity and so any judgement to do with what they were allowed to recover from downloaders could not be enforced. Any they could basically do what ever they wanted once they had the names. Hence the bond they would forfeit if they went rouge.
A "local distributor" would incur huge contempt of court penalties if they went rouge and these can be enforced by the court on an Australian entity. Hence they would not need to pay a bond.
So either way speculative invoicing model will not work as loss of bond (non-local rights holder) or contempt of court penalties (local rights holder) would not make it viable. The DBC precedent means "Speculative Invoicing" will not be allowed within the framework of current Australian law making it pointless for even a local distributor to "have a try" unless they wanted to play fair.
........It was their intentions that were clearly out of order........
+1
It was clearly about extortion, pure and simple. All they had to do was ask for about $200 and that would have been the end of it, the Judge would have agreed, people would have stopped their activity and a precedent would be in place to deter individuals from further torrenting.
200 x 30,000 = 6,000,000 Good and fair outcome
2,000 x 30,000 = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really good outcome for scum sucking POS Lawyers.
Makes it harder with a dynamic IP that's alll.....
Not at all. The records of which subscriber held a particular IP address on any second of the day are kept, whether in the form of RADIUS logs or DHCP logs. And they're kept for years.
And they're kept for years.
Unlikely without court action (or laws) requiring the logs to be kept. There's no benefit to the ISP to keep the logs for much more than a year and some may only hold them for a few months.
Unlikely without court action (or laws) requiring the logs to be kept. There's no benefit to the ISP to keep the logs for much more than a year and some may only hold them for a few months.
And how would they be able to comply with the new data retention laws if they did this?
There's no benefit to the ISP to keep the logs for much more than a year and some may only hold them for a few months.
I'm think a rep from iiNet said at the beginning if this whole saga that they only keep the logs for a few months.
Like this (:P :P) ?
LMAO � *Rogue*. Mind you they probably feeling a bit rouge faced at the moment hey :)
And how would they be able to comply with the new data retention laws if they did this?
Which is not accessible to parties of that nature
And how would they be able to comply with the new data retention laws if they did this?
As you clearly read my reply, perhaps you would like to go back and read words 5 and 6 again. If you're not sure, those are words inside the parentheses (brackets).
Which is not accessible to parties of that nature
Wanna lay money on that? I'll bet you the reasonable price of the DBC movie and costs to get your details that the data retained is accessible to the plaintiff.
So either way speculative invoicing model will not work as loss of bond (non-local rights holder) or contempt of court penalties (local rights holder) would not make it viable.
in some cases the courts have insisted that a party at least have a bank guarantee to cover the other parties costs etc.
If a a distributor was a $2 or even a $2000 company and its only asset was one or more film distribution rights then I could see the Court imposing a bond on them as well, otherwise there might be no funds to recover any penalties for breach of the court orders
Wanna lay money on that? I'll bet you the reasonable price of the DBC movie and costs to get your details that the data retained is accessible to the plaintiff.
Two different sets of data.
Metadata has to be stored for the specified period in a secure manner and that data is not available to entities like DBC.
The data retained for billing purposes, which is stored in a different system is a different story and would be available by court order.
Two different sets of data.
Metadata has to be stored for the specified period in a secure manner and that data is not available to entities like DBC.
The data retained for billing purposes, which is stored in a different system is a different story and would be available by court order.
I would think the retained metadata could only be used in the case of criminal investigation and this may not be accessible in a purely civil case. I could be wrong though, I don't know the finer points of the retention legislation and under what circumstances it can be obtained.
Data not stored specifically for retention purposes (such as billing) do not come under the retention legislation so are accessible by court order whether Civil or Criminal.
Anyone know for sure if the legislative retained metadata is available to civil courts?
I would think the retained metadata could only be used in the case of criminal investigation and this may not be accessible in a purely civil case.
I don't think this is correct but ...
Anyone know for sure if the legislative retained metadata is available to civil courts?
IANAL, so if you want to know "for sure", get a lawyer. :-)
Broadly speaking the Data Retention legislation did not change the provisions around whether the data is available to civil proceedings. The legislation "simply" required the collection of data if it is not already collected and the retention of the data. If it was accessible in civil proceedings before the legislation then it is still accessible. etc.
So... now that its over how many of you scallywags downloaded it :p
LOL. Not me. Had never even heard of the film until they started their legal action.
The case is still listed as open pending process review on federal court website ....Interesting. I wonder what is holding up the case being listed as closed.
The case is still listed as open pending process review on federal court website ....Interesting. I wonder what is holding up the case being listed as closed.
The issue of costs need to be battled out now that Vultures Inc. have abandoned the proceedings..
Let's see if they do the right thing and pay up or do a runner. Where this leaves their law firm will also be interesting.
id love to hear another triple j review featuring the arrogance of Michael wickstrom. Announcing that he was intending to penalise people with punitive damages for downloading non-voltage works made me realise what a total scumbag he really was.
Let's see if they do the right thing and pay up or do a runner. Where this leaves their law firm will also be interesting.
Your assuming DBC is liable here, their deal with the Lawyers could have been an outcome based deal where they (Marque clowns) foot all costs and get a bigger slice of the cake if they win. It explains their desperate and greed regards damages.
Your assuming DBC is liable here, their deal with the Lawyers could have been an outcome based deal where they (Marque clowns) foot all costs and get a bigger slice of the cake if they win. It explains their desperate and greed regards damages.
If this is the case, and none of us know at this stage, but it will soon be unravelled, then the prediction I made 12 months ago in this thread that the lawyers would be bankrupt and out of business by the end of it still may come to pass ????
lawyers would be bankrupt and out of business by the end of it still may come to pass ????
Lawyers don't go broke (only their clients), in any case even if DBC have to pay they will. The alternative is business suicide if they renege on a deal. Nobody in Hollywood or the USA or the world for that matter will ever enter into a deal with them if they do as you put it a runner.
Lawyers don't go broke
Yes they do, especially if they are found liable, for anything...
Yes they do, especially if they are found liable, for anything...
Yes....although here it doesn't apply.
Yes....although here it doesn't apply.
Lol. You don't know that and only two posts previous you stated DBC lawyers may have to wear all costs......
So what is it that you are stating?
So what is it that you are stating?
Sorry I took your meaning of liable as in wrong doing. I see the confusion now.
Broadly speaking the Data Retention legislation did not change the provisions around whether the data is available to civil proceedings. The legislation "simply" required the collection of data if it is not already collected and the retention of the data. If it was accessible in civil proceedings before the legislation then it is still accessible. etc.
https://www.ag.gov.au/Nation
Only agencies that have a clear need for such access and well-developed internal systems for protecting privacy, such as law enforcement and intelligence agencies will be able to access the data. Data must be reasonably necessary for the purposes of investigating criminal offences and other permitted purposes.
Data must be reasonably necessary for the purposes of investigating criminal offences and other permitted purposes.
If a vpn server is used that's located in Australia than all data flowing through that can be monitored and logged forever by apd, asio etc. Every person that uses the vpn will be logged not an individual as the likelyhood is only the vpn IP is known Furthermore the vpn can't tell anyone what's going on.
It was long recognised as soon as the legislation was introduced that the government would be doing this. They don't even need a real criminal, they can create their own to cover their privacy invasion of Australian citizens. It's why you should not use an Australian vpn if you value your privacy.
Sorry, you missed the point of the post :) You need to read the preposts that came from to understand why that was posted.
Only agencies that ...
That answer is not applicable. It is "correct" in the context in which it was intended but it doesn't answer the question in respect of civil proceedings.
The question in the FAQ should say "Who can access the data without a court order?" Then the answer is "correct" except for the part about reducing the number of agencies.
If the question in the FAQ said "Who can access the data with a court order?" then the answer is absolutely everybody � but of course that "everybody" has to convince a court that the data is relevant to a case and appropriate to be released � exactly as happened in the DBC case, not that it worked out very well for them.
So in fact Data Retention is bad for you if you are the target of civil proceedings. Previously your ISP could say "we no longer have that data" (if that is truthful). Now it is more likely that the ISP will have the data and if the ISP has the data and a court orders them to release the data, the ISP has to do that. That was true before. That is still true. What has changed is the likelihood that the ISP has the data (since they are now obligated to collect, and retain for 2 years).
Every person that uses the vpn will be logged not an individual as the likelyhood is only the vpn IP is known Furthermore the vpn can't tell anyone what's going on.
SO whats the issue then if the vpn provider cant tell online whats going on ? the data retained will be useless unless asio has broken 3 layers of of encryption
SO whats the issue
It will matter if the Attorney-General's Department issues a directive to the VPN provider requiring the provider to collect and retain sufficient records to allow the authorities to track activity on the internet back to the individual VPN customer.
If privacy is your highest priority then I agree with that post ... you would not use an Australian VPN provider.
but of course that "everybody" has to convince a court that the data is relevant to a case and appropriate to be released
They don't have to convince the court that the data is relevant, just that it may be relevant. If they had to prove that the data actually is relevant then almost nobody would ever get a court order because most of the time the relevance of the data can only be determined by inspecting the data.
They don't have to convince the court that the data is relevant, just that it may be relevant.
Fair point.
I suppose they could convince the court that it may be relevant, then the data is released to the court by the ISP, then the court determines whether it is relevant and, if so, releases the data to the plaintiff and defendant.
There's no doubt that the judge in the DBC case has been very vigilant about protecting the rights of those customers who were affected by the release of the data. I wonder whether all judges would be so vigilant.
If privacy is your highest priority then I agree with that post ... you would not use an Australian VPN provider.
Are you saying an Australian VPN provider per se or any VPN provider that has a server(out) based here?
Are you saying an Australian VPN provider per se or any VPN provider that has a server(out) based here?
Technically, according to the legislation the question is whether the company has "infrastructure" in Australia, whether or not the infrastructure is used to provide the VPN service. Infrastructure could be more general than "a server". (It is not actually defined in the legislation what "infrastructure" means but the Explanatory Memorandum says to give it its "natural meaning".)
In practice that means that it is highly likely that all Australian companies are unacceptable. However some foreign companies could also be unacceptable. You are looking for a foreign company that does not have infrastructure in Australia.
That's the problem with these Legal interpretations or renderings, they leave just enough room to drive a truck through.
They don't have to convince the court that the data is relevant, just that it may be relevant. If they had to prove that the data actually is relevant then almost nobody would ever get a court order because most of the time the relevance of the data can only be determined by inspecting the data.
The danger is that this data retention practice is bordering on facilitating a fishing expedition: when you collect so much data over such a long time period, the objects become effectively self-incriminating for whatever future criminal laws are enacted and then applied retrospectively. And it will be retrospective because of the duration of retention and the obvious desire of DBC to include other copyright infringements beyond it's own brief to better support its case. There will be a temptation to discover other instances of wrongdoing to suggest the likelihood of criminal activity by association in a civil court.
Time to close.
Time to close.
I think it should remain open, because I believe ratification of the TPP will allow threatening letters via another avenue that will not be able to be blocked so easily.
Given the identification metadata associated with this litigation dates prior to the new data retention laws, which is not retrospective, I think this thread should be closed also. Surely this data has already been destroyed by iiBorg given it is not legally required to be kept.
I thought the TPP could not be applied retrospectively either.
Anyone "bareback" torrenting these days deserves to be punished, and have a new thread created for them if they are chased by copyright trolls.
Surely this data has already been destroyed by iiBorg given it is not legally required to be kept.
Perhaps we should wait until that's confirmed?
because I believe ratification of the TPP will allow threatening letters via another avenue that will not be able to be blocked so easily.
I thought the TPP could not be applied retrospectively either.
My understanding (from what I've read) is that the TPP places a type of pressure on all member states to have a facility in place to allow rights holders to quickly resolve copyright issues. This is to be resolved in accordance with their respective Legal system. Since Australia still plans to implement a three strikes policy nothing needs to be added or modified legislatively, a point made by the current Government to that affect. In essence though this whole DBC case will with hindsight prove to be a massive blessing as no rights holder can demand ridiculous amounts in non existent damages. We now have a precedence in place and the framework will be built on it.
The TPP is non retrospective.
The TPP is non retrospective.
It doesn't have to be: torrenting is still happening along with Maverick-Eye (or other system) data collection, plus the parallel legal requirement to now keep all metadata on the client side so all the information is there for any subsequent case to use as evidence.
Whilst the TPP supports negotiation using existing legal rules, IIRC it also includes provisions to sue for loss of income and damages, which bypasses those sovereign legal rules. It is those provisions that I think the studios will leverage next since Australia has set a normal legal precedent for dismissal of speculative invoicing. Up till now, other countries had no legal standing in Australia, but now there are (or will be when the TPP is ratified) situations in which their laws can be imposed here.
I do not know if the studio representing DBC have produced any recent movies that could be used as further cases, but even if not, I believe this topic is about speculative invoicing over copyright infringement and how Australia has responded to that more generally than simply DBC. Consequently I think it should be kept open for the landmark resource it is for future "threats" of this nature, rather than simply open a new thread for every studio that tries to sue for copyright damages and alleged loss of income, especially if that attack uses workarounds such as the TPP to change the outcome.
It doesn't have to be: torrenting is still happening along with Maverick-Eye (or other system) data collection, plus the parallel legal requirement to now keep all metadata on the client side so all the information is there for any subsequent case to use as evidence.
Metadata retention only applies from the legislated date. The DBC metadata predates this metatdata retention legislation. It can therefore be destroyed, legally, which I suspect has already been done. With no metadata there is no case. End of this thread.
Whilst the TPP supports negotiation using existing legal rules, IIRC it also includes provisions to sue for loss of income and damages, which bypasses those sovereign legal rules.
My understanding is these provisions cannot be applied retrospectively.
It is those provisions that I think the studios will leverage next since Australia has set a normal legal precedent for dismissal of speculative invoicing.
Thus, any retrospective copyright legal proceedings will be subject to Judge Perram's DBC precedent.
Close this thread please, and create a new one if (or most likely when) more copyright troll legal proceedings are launched.
EDIT: With the increased usage of VPNs, metadata will be less and less useful for copyright trolls.
the identification metadata associated with this litigation dates prior to the new data retention laws, which is not retrospective
You can't rely on that 100%.
It's true that the Data Retention laws are not retrospective. However the legislation contained a clause that requires all ISPs to maintain their current level of retention from the passing of the legislation until the "go live" of Data Retention.
So if an ISP already, for example, keeps IP address assignment information for 20 months then they would have to continue to do that even though the Data Retention legislation won't force them to retain data for the full 24 months until some agreed data in the future.
So, for example, an ISP can't just toss away its existing Data Retention system, start re-implementing it from scratch in order to comply with the new legislation and then magically bring the system back online in time for "go live".
So therefore, in this specific case, it depends on what data retention iinet had in place at the time the Data Retention laws were passed � and it depends on how long the DBC case had been dragging on for.
So therefore, in this specific case, it depends on what data retention iinet had in place at the time the Data Retention laws were passed � and it depends on how long the DBC case had been dragging on for.
didn't IInet say they kept that data only long enough for billing purposes?
was it ever established that IInet actually had any data to pass on?
Close this thread please, and create a new one if (or most likely when) more copyright troll legal proceedings are launched.
Why create a new thread for every film that every studio decides to try speculative invoicing or TPP supported loss of income litigation, when this thread could be applied to all generically, since they will all relate to the Perram precedent?
was it ever established that IInet actually had any data to pass on?
LOL. That would be funny ...
Well, I assume that it wouldn't have got as far as it did, if there was no customer data.
I don't believe it ever was established.
The data that was retained was never examined by the judge or the plaintiff.
The ISP's only retained and maintained the data that they had in their possession at the commencement of legal proceedings.
What that was is anyone's guess, but given iinet's response and letters to customers one may assume that some useful data was retained.
I don't believe it ever was established.
Seriously though iinet wouldn't want to spend many hours in court arguing if they didn't have the data at all? Wouldn't it be simpler just to say that they didn't have the data because at the time (before Data Retention) they had no legal obligation to retain the data and had chosen not to do so?
Seriously though iinet wouldn't want to spend many hours in court arguing if they didn't have the data at all? Wouldn't it be simpler just to say that they didn't have the data because at the time (before Data Retention) they had no legal obligation to retain the data and had chosen not to do so?
I don't believe they would take this tact based on a number of reasons.
The possibility of setting a precedent that we would give you the data if we had it but we don't have it and therefore can't give it to you.
This puts them well behind the 8 ball in any subsequent requests for their account holders details I would think, and they'd be back in court all over again.
This case has put to bed the spectre of speculative invoicing once and for all I believe and that was their intention from the get go regardless of what data existed or did not exist.
Ultimately they wanted to protect their customers from the predatory and extortionate practises of the scumbag copyright trolls known as Voltage.
With the metadata currently being retained by law by the ISPs is there safeguards for that data ? that it can only be used by law enforcement ? Its unavailable to media companies in copyright action ?
I don't believe they would take this tact based on a number of reasons.
The possibility of setting a precedent that we would give you the data if we had it but we don't have it and therefore can't give it to you.
Perhaps they could have refused to give DBC the data on the present grounds and then added that in any event they didnt have the data anyway.
is there safeguards for that data ? that it can only be used by law enforcement ?
Not in the legislation as far as I can see.
It's unavailable to media companies in copyright action ?
So it would be available to copyright trolls (or any other civil litigants), provided that a court agrees. Even though Data Retention is ostensibly but misguidedly for law enforcement, it has the potential to be a boon for civil actions.
Apart from copyright trolls, the availability in divorce proceedings has the potential to get juicy. Maybe even probate disputes. But really we are only just scratching the surface for the potential misuses of the data, civil or criminal, particularly as it isn't technically "live" yet.
Not in the legislation as far as I can see.
There isn't any solid safe guards on any data period.
Sony couldn't even keep their emails between executives safe. The American's couldn't even keep the plans for their new A-Bomb safe right after WW2.
If you have given out data you should just operate on the assumption that is public already; just be mindful what you give and how.
If you have given out data
Let me correct that for you.
"If you have given out [had] data [taken from you]"
Noone is consenting to Data Retention.
If you have given out data you should just operate on the assumption that is public already;
Even people from law enforcing agencies blackmail people on their data. It's highly unsafe to allow even them to reach our data
Even people from law enforcing agencies blackmail people on their data. It's highly unsafe to allow even them to reach our data
Which is why a VPN is so important these days.
Only traffic shown is through a VPN exit point and there is no DNS resolution history... assuming no logs and VPN provides DNS services.
I think it is safe to assume that all government agencies will eventually get their hands on AUS metadata, along with NSA, CIA, FBI and equivalent "allies" agencies. It wouldn't surprise me if this is on-sold commercially either.
If you have given out data you should just operate on the assumption that is public already; just be mindful what you give and how.
Which is why the global Facebook, and social media in general, trends utterly baffle me.
These companies are not about community, connection and sharing... they are data collection conglomerates. Peddling info is what they do. Google and Facebook are worth so much because the collect massive amounts of data, collate them into individual profiles, and either on-sell it or use it to advertise.
This is precisely why Microsoft got into the data mining business with Windows 10, which is pure malware.
Combine data from various platforms and cross-reference that with financial records (ie VISA) and very little is left to the imagination. Only a matter of time until employers get a hold of this data through recruitment background checks, and they know you buy 2 litres of vodka a week or subscribe to 8 bdsm pron sites.
The head of the FBI (or CIA?) was quoted as saying he couldn't believe how much info people reveal about themselves online. All of that data is handed to them on an well organised platter by Zuckerberg et al
Big Data is the biggest threat to our civil liberties and privacy ... ever!
Google and Facebook are worth so much because ...
Of course that's true but you can choose not to use Google and Facebook but you can't choose not to have your data retained under the Data Retention laws. (Sure, you can take action to minimise what is collected e.g. use a VPN.)
Of course that's true but you can choose not to use Google and Facebook but you can't choose not to have your data retained under the Data Retention laws. (Sure, you can take action to minimise what is collected e.g. use a VPN.)
+1000000
We are in danger of moving into wing nut territory here. Just stay on your toes and be smart about what you do and how you do it, no need to get your tin foil hat out.
We are in danger of moving into wing nut territory here.
Do some research on Big Data before ignorantly shooting from the hip... or if reading isn't your thing there are a growing number of documentaries on the subject.
ISP metadata is only a tiny piece in the Big Data puzzle. Digital fingerprinting combined with trackers log almost everything you do on the internet, which is then on-sold to Big Data for collation into a profile with a myriad of other data from dozens of sources. It is the collation and cross referencing of this data that is the scary thing. This is happening today and this data is being shared with CIA, FBI and NSA. Again, do some reading or watch some docos.
I use a number of settings, external services and Firefox add-ons when browsing in an attempt to muddy the tracking water and minimize known digital fingerprinting techniques, but nothing is completely effective.
If you genuinely don't care that a detailed dossier is being collected on you, containing a scary amount of detailed personal and behavioural info, that is your choice.
I hate it.
Can you name a few docos please?
Last one I saw, off the top of my head, I think was called Human Face of Big Data.
There was a really good one also on SBS2 a few weeks ago about how companies (ie Google, Apple, etc) use their terms of service to "legally" collect and use your data any way they want. Its called Terms and Conditions May Apply. The dude confronts Zuckerberg at the end of it outside his house asking him about meetings with heads of FBI and CIA.
http://www.rottentomatoes.co
The Age of Big Data is currently on SBS on demand too...
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/98877507712/
There are many more if you look around, these are a good start.
There was another doco too, but I forget its name.
The thing that spooked me in this one was an individual's spending habits were being tied to their current location, via mobile phone, so you could be marketed to on the fly by a shop nearby. It was proof of concept stuff in the doco, but the fact they have that level of detail on the average punter is scary as hell.
There is a mountain of info out there on online tracking and digital fingerprinting (ie unique digital id) too.
Suggest people DuckDuckGo it though... never use Google.
This stuff has been happening for years...
Here's a copy � http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAE
There is a mountain of info out there on online tracking and digital fingerprinting (ie unique digital id) too.
Suggest people DuckDuckGo it though... never use Google.
why do people always recommend a different search engine when they all use google or bing as a base??
why do people always recommend a different search engine when they all use google or bing as a base?
The intermediary can aggregate all the searches, obscure the original source of the request, and alter any request headers.
why do people always recommend a different search engine when they all use google or bing as a base??
DuckDuckGo emphasizes protecting users' privacy, doesn't track or profile its users, and thus deliberately shows all users the same search results for a given search term.
Google searches identify you and adds every single seach word to your ever growing data profile. Same with Yahoo and Bing. Ever googled extreme porn or suicide techniques? That will be in your profile. Their search engine businesses are a front for their primary business... data collection. Similarly gmail and chrome are a bit like Bada Bing or Satriales, well in concept anyway :). Every FREE product they produce data mines you like a full intestinal length alien anal probe.
Anyone looking for a mail service that doesn't data mine everything that has ever been in your inbox might want to consider Tutanota or Protonmail. These services have the added security feature of encrypting everything that is stored, with no back door allegedly, so never mind your data being mined... it can't even be read. Pretty sure it is open source too... but be warned if you lose your password... everything is GAWN.
https://www.bestvpn.com/blog
Simply use the Google Analytics Opt Out Browser Add-on :)
Google searches identify you and adds every single seach word to your ever growing data profile.
The danger is that this is done without context and simply by keyword.
When you consider how much misunderstanding occurs in Forums even using the written word in sentences with context, you can imagine how misleading storing isolated keywords only can be.
When you consider how much misunderstanding occurs in Forums even using the written word in sentences with context, you can imagine how misleading storing isolated keywords only can be.
Time to start deliberately doing some obscure keyword searches, and see who knocks on the door :)
ISIS, Syria, Anarchists cookbook :)
Simply use the Google Analytics Opt Out Browser Add-on :)
LOL, there are thousands of trackers, of which Google Analytics is but one. Whirlpool actually have a Google Analytics script on this page, but sadly I've blocked it... Hi Google!
uMatrix, uBlock Origin, Ghostery, Privacy Badger, BetterPrivacy (for supercookies), R.A.S, NoScript, CanvasBlocker, FlashBlock and Self Destructing Cookies are just some of the add-ons around to help deal with Big Data tracking and digital fingerprinting.
Firefox is moving away from add-ons model to WebExtensions later this year, wonder how many of these will break? Personally I think this direction is driven by Big Data not the bullshit excuses Modzilla have put forth.
Time to start deliberately doing some obscure keyword searches, and see who knocks on the door :)
In Terms and Conditions May Apply there are examples of this, where Facebook and Twitter posts were taken way out of context, resulting in SWAT teams breaking down doors and even detaining people.
So anyway...
What actually happened with this case? Did they just give up and go home?
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