Illegal downloading: Australia internet firms must supply data

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ketara**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-32200681

An Australian court has ordered internet service providers (ISPs) to hand over details of customers accused of illegally downloading a US movie.

In a landmark move, the Federal Court told six firms to divulge names and addresses of those who downloaded The Dallas Buyers Club.
The case was lodged by the US company that owns the rights to the 2013 movie.
The court said the data could only be used to secure "compensation for the infringements" of copyright.
In the case, which was heard in February, the applicants said they had identified 4,726 unique IP addresses from which their film was shared online using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file sharing network. They said this had been done without their permission.

Once they received the names of account holders, the company would then have to prove copyright infringement had taken place.
The judgment comes amidst a crackdown by the Australian government on internet piracy.
Australians are among the world's most regular illegal downloaders of digital content. The delay in release dates for new films and TV shows, and higher prices in Australia for digital content, have prompted many Australians to find surreptitious ways to watch new shows.

The ISPs involved in the case, including Australia's second-largest provider iiNet, said releasing customer information would be a breach of privacy and lead to what is known in the US as "speculative invoicing".
This is where account holders are threatened with court cases that could result in large damages unless smaller settlement fees are paid.
The ISPs argued also that the monetary claims which the US company, Dallas Buyers Club LLC, had against each infringer were so small "that it was plain that no such case could or would be maintained by the applicants".
But Justice Nye Perram ruled that the customer information could be released on condition it was only used to recover compensation for copyright infringement.
"I will also impose a condition on the applicants that they are to submit to me a draft of any letter they propose to send to account holders associated with the IP addresses which have been identified," he ruled.
Justice Perram said the ruling was also important for deterring illegal downloading.
"It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that damages of a sufficient size might be awarded under this provision in an appropriately serious case in a bid to deter people from the file-sharing of films," he said.
The case came to court after Dallas Buyers Club LLC contacted iiNet and other ISPs, asking them to divulge customer details without a court order. The ISPs refused.
The ISPs have yet to say if they will appeal against the court ruling.
Professor of Law at the University of Technology, Sydney, Michael Fraser said it was an important judgement for ISPs and customers.
"If this [judgement] is upheld then the days of anonymous pirating may be over," Prof Fraser told ABC TV.

Watch out Australia?

**juraigamer**

I see your one movie that was butthurt over having it's movie being downloaded and raise you bad publicity over said lawsuit leading to more downloads and lost revenue. They are digging their own grave on this one.

**Chongara**

juraigamer wrote:
I see your one movie that was butthurt over having it's movie being downloaded and raise you bad publicity over said lawsuit leading to more downloads and lost revenue. They are digging their own grave on this one.

They're not actually going to sue anyone. These probably aren't even the original IP owners. Typically lawyers will approach smaller studios or those slinging porno, and ask to buy the rights to the BT distribution. They then start the torrents themselves and try to get the names of the IP addrs of those that downloaded it. Then they send out shakedown letters demanding a couple thousand bucks. At that point paying up is a much cheaper proposition than trying to get a lawyer and fighting it. So people pay up to preclude the possibility of an actual lawsuit going to court. Sometimes the even shadier ones throw in IPs they've generated completely at random, or that have viewed the page where the torrent is posted without actually dling anything.

Of course, the lawyers don't actually want to bring anyone to court because the cases are virtually impossible to win short of the defendant self-incriminating because an IP is basically worthless as means of identifying someone. They still get payments though, because people don't wanna take the perceived risk.

**Peregrine**

Don't forget the "make it the most extreme and embarrassing porn possible" part, so you can shame people into paying instead of making their porn choices public in court.

**juraigamer**

Chongara wrote:

They're not actually going to sue anyone. These probably aren't even the original IP owners.

So they are going to engage in illegal activity in order to extort money from individuals? Are you aware just how crazy that sounds? Also no one has "fake" downloading hosts setup in order to collect this data, furthermore there is no method to confirm the data downloaded was completed if you are not the only seed. I'm I going to be sued for having 3 seconds of a video on my computer? How can you prove it isn't from youtube? Trust me, I deal with computers and such in great detail, this reality you suggest isn't anything more than faux news.

**Chongara**

juraigamer wrote:
Chongara wrote:

They're not actually going to sue anyone. These probably aren't even the original IP owners.

So they are going to engage in illegal activity in order to extort money from individuals? Are you aware just how crazy that sounds? Also no one has "fake" downloading hosts setup in order to collect this data, furthermore there is no method to confirm the data downloaded was completed if you are not the only seed. I'm I going to be sued for having 3 seconds of a video on my computer? How can you prove it isn't from youtube? Trust me, I deal with computers and such in great detail, this reality you suggest isn't anything more than faux news.

Nothing about it is illegal, and it's all rather standard practice. This stuff happens all the time. They set up torrent and just record every IP that touches it. Then they make demands to the ISP for the personal information of the owners of the accounts those IPs belong to. Generally courts tend to be pretty willing to grant these orders for that information as it's easy to construct as relevant to their investigation into the piracy.

Once they have the owner's personal information they mass send out letter to the effect of:

"Your <ISP ACCOUNT> has been positively identified as belonging to the IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, which we have identified as having downoaded <file> from <place> at <time>. If you are found to have been the pirate you could face fines of up to <amount> and lawsuits up to <amount> and jail time up to <time>. We'd like to avoid such a situtation, and are willing to settle the matter without further investigation or action for $4,000 usd."

They're not suing anyone, and they don't care about files are or aren't on your computer they'll never look. All they care about is that they have list of IPs that seem plausible to the court, and the correct rights to potentially sue. They'll also never sue because the cases can't hold up in court beyond the cursory demands for the contact information.

**Sigvatr**

juraigamer wrote:
Chongara wrote:

They're not actually going to sue anyone. These probably aren't even the original IP owners.

So they are going to engage in illegal activity in order to extort money from individuals? Are you aware just how crazy that sounds?

This happened in Germany last year, it was about RedTube and lawyers were breaking the law to get data on internet users, trying to effectively blackmail them.

**daedalus**

juraigamer wrote:

So they are going to engage in illegal activity in order to extort money from individuals? Are you aware just how crazy that sounds? Also no one has "fake" downloading hosts setup in order to collect this data, furthermore there is no method to confirm the data downloaded was completed if you are not the only seed. I'm I going to be sued for having 3 seconds of a video on my computer? How can you prove it isn't from youtube? Trust me, I deal with computers and such in great detail, this reality you suggest isn't anything more than faux news.

I don't think he suggested anything about 3 seconds of video on your computer or youtube. I think he was talking about torrents.

BTW, this already happens in the US with the music/movie industry.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

I actually got one of those letter last summer, someone used my wifi to download skillet of all fething things. Responding to them is considered an admission of guilt and can actually be used against you further down the road. Ever get one just need to ignore it. Comcast customers won't even get the letters, because they are big enough to tell the probing companies to feth off.

Edit: I do not condone piracy of any sort that doesn't involve peg legs and swords. Just saying I got a letter accusing me of it.

**juraigamer**

daedalus wrote:
juraigamer wrote:

So they are going to engage in illegal activity in order to extort money from individuals? Are you aware just how crazy that sounds? Also no one has "fake" downloading hosts setup in order to collect this data, furthermore there is no method to confirm the data downloaded was completed if you are not the only seed. I'm I going to be sued for having 3 seconds of a video on my computer? How can you prove it isn't from youtube? Trust me, I deal with computers and such in great detail, this reality you suggest isn't anything more than faux news.

I don't think he suggested anything about 3 seconds of video on your computer or youtube. I think he was talking about torrents.

BTW, this already happens in the US with the music/movie industry.

They use a different system to locate downloaders. Also, to them, 3 seconds is basically the same as having the whole hour + video. The laws haven't caught up.

This happened in Germany last year

Yes and them doing so isn't sanctioned legally.

**motyak**

If anyone wants a chuckle, use google trends and check out how many people have googled VPNs/how to get a VPN in Australia over the last while. What is VPN, up 100%. Best VPN, breakout. Mac VPN, +400%. I love my country.

**sebster**

It's worth pointing out that unlike the US, there's no statutory minimum damages claim in Australia. Instead, the damages able to be collected are no more than the cost of otherwise obtaining the movie, so the price of buying the DVD, which is about $20. And speculative invoicing has no legal standing here either, meaning that in order to collect the $20 the studio is going to have to issue a summons and take the matter through the courts. Which is obviously a whole lot of hassle to get $20 off of one guy.

This means that while studios now have some legal means to punish pirates, doing so is going to be very expensive, and will likely be done only to stop other acts of piracy, not as a money making scheme.

Honestly, it's a pretty good ruling from what I can see.

**motyak**

Sebster you're probably more up on this than I am, can they sting you for the price of a DVD you already own? I'm asking for a....friend.

**sebster**

motyak wrote:
Sebster you're probably more up on this than I am, can they sting you for the price of a DVD you already own? I'm asking for a....friend.

No idea, mate. My 'up to it' is an interview on Radio National the morning after the ruling

**SagesStone**

I haven't even heard of this movie before now, apparently it's from 2013 and probably only notable for this case.