Studios to appeal Copyright case in High Court
The landmark copyright case against iiNET will go before the High Court next year after studios won an application to appeal.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
The landmark copyright case against iiNET will go before the High Court next year after studios won an application to appeal.
A group of 34 movie studios and TV companies, including the Seven Network, are hoping to overturn a ruling that internet service provider iiNet could not be held responsible for illegal file-sharing.
But iiNet CEO Michael Malone says a genuine whole-of-industry discussion and approach is needed to make content legitimately available online and to tackle illegal downloads.
“We remain committed to developing an industry solution that sees more content readily and cheaply available online as well as a sensible model for dealing with repeated copyright infringement activity,” he said.
“We will continue to defend our position in these proceedings if necessary. I remain convinced that a genuine industry-wide solution is a better outcome for allconcerned and I’m hopeful it will be developed.”
Federal Court judge Justice Dennis Cowdroy, previously found the Perth-based ISP was not responsible for the infringements of its users and that they should not be held responsible for what their users send over the internet.
18 Responses
While yes, file sharing is definitely stealing, the movie and TV industry has been treating their customers with such contempt for years, they wonder why people are so keen to pirate!
As for the studios estimates on the money they are losing to piracy, it is based on the assumption that the stolen content would’ve been purchased, and I think it would surprise them what a low percentage that would be.
The basic premise that I can be told what I’m allowed to do with things that I own, and have to sit through not only ads, but warnings about not pirating a movie I’ve purchased, is offensive and indicative to why the studios are losing this battle.
I own hundreds of legally-purchased movies, but I wonder why I support such a short-sighted and pathetic industry.
I noticed that the Daily Show and Colbert were geo-blocked lately.
Secret Squïrrel,
Well, you coulda fooled me! For somebody who says ‘file sharing’ isn’t right & hasn’t BitTorrented anything, you’re sure spending a lot of time defending those who do.
Piracy *is* theft. It may have another legal term, but that’s just semantics & doesn’t add anything to this debate. If you’re consuming content where normally you’d pay (either through iTunes, video rental stores, cinemas, outright DVD purchases, etc) or watch through advertiser supported outlets (like TV networks & their video websites), then you’re stealing. Simple as that!
As for that well-worn myth about people paying for the real deal after sampling an illegal copy is rubbish, & you know it. Don’t tell me you know a friend of a friend who did it, because I haven’t heard any evidence to suggest that’s caught on. Besides, it just doesn’t make any sense to pay for another copy if you already have it for free. The only ones I’ll believe are the real hard core fans who are obsessed with one particular media product & must have it like a collectable.
I also want to address your first post: “reasonable pricing” just can’t compete with absolutely free-of-charge. The music industry has been crashed by Internet downloads. The only money to be made now comes from over-priced live events.
You say some entertainment have “ridiculous prices” but that means you could apply your pro-theft argument to almost anything. Again, being entertained isn’t a human right. VCRs, CD burners & PVRs have always been a small irritation for the industry because there was always a physical barrier. The open nature of the Internet will ultimately bring their death because there is no limit to the web. Our future looks more & more like user generated YouTube-like videos will be all that’s left to comfort us while our climate roasts us alive. Sounds great!
@Stan – you prob should take more care with regard to what you accuse people of having done. I have never used BitTorrent or similar to illegally download a TV show or a movie. However, I have watched programs on overseas-based distribution platforms such as Hulu, or clips uploaded legitimately on YouTube or network sites. I have also used overseas proxies to circumvent geo-blocking if in place which means I am presented with US or European advertising instead of Australian.
As for me contradicting myself, obviously I wasn’t being clear. Piracy is not theft – it is copyright infringement. As I already said, if it was theft, we wouldn’t need new laws to deal with it.
Regarding lost sales, despite what the studios say, there is no evidence that everyone who illegally obtains a copy of some movie or TV show would have otherwise bought that content through normal channels. In fact, sometimes the opposite occurs – people will pay for the real thing after sampling an illegal copy. So, I agree that there are lost opportunities for the copyright holder to make a profit, just not that it’s a one to one relationship.
I also agree that the lack of a physical product lowers the psychological barrier that would prevent most people from stealing from a store, along with the casual ease of doing it from your computer, and the low probability of being punished.
I still think the studios would be better off spending their energies on establishing a platform for distributing their product easily and inexpensively, rather than trying to hound the millions of otherwise law-abiding individuals who engage in illegal downloading.
Before I start Charlie Kelly makes a really good argument and what I have to say mainly concerns music but overflows into Video as well.
Suggesting File sharing is stealing is like reporting your car stolen but it’s still there in the morning.
Read some of the stories regarding the views of some of the most successful acts and you will see the conflicting attitudes usually focus on industry greed.
Bands such as Radiohead and Nine inch nails have found niche markets away from the greedy executives where bands is such as Metallica have alienated a large part of their fan base.
I worked in the Industry in the late 70’s and 80’s and can tell you as a fact when pay for play was introduced it ruined what was an intense and critical period for what now are Australia’s most iconic bands.
Pub rock catapulted bands such as Cold Chisel, INXS, Mental as Anything, Radiators, Saints Etc. Into Australian folklore and most would not have ever been noticed if left up to the “Industry”.
The average struggling muso will tell you his income from royalties even if file sharing didn’t exist would be negligible.
Greedy Companies decided with the advent of the CD/DVD era cashing in on reissues in what is a massively cheaper medium was easy way to make huge amount of money out of people keen to update their collections.
Those profits are now waning and they did absolutely nothing to value add, so any of you wanting to jump on the high horse regarding “Piracy” should actually check what the term means and you will see the pirates have been in control the whole time.
Secret Squïrrel,
What makes me mad about this is all the excuses & blame-shifting that ‘file sharing’ users keep peddling publicly. Why don’t you just admit you’re nothing but a common thief & that it’s suckers like me who still pay for what I consume that subsidises you & your friends’ entertainment? Otherwise, why would content creators & providers be in the business? Just to put a smile on your face? No, they need to be paid like everyone else.
The way people comment on stories like this makes it sound like electronic entertainment is some kind of human right!
Your baseless arguments are so illogical that you’ve contradicted yourself within a couple of sentences by stating that, “piracy isn’t right,” but later claiming, ‘only the studios and people like me consider it as theft.’ I also don’t understand your logic where you think taking something illegally won’t also deny the seller a profit. What world does that work in?
The only reason why people don’t think twice before ‘file sharing’ is because it isn’t a physical product which doesn’t have the same psychological barriers attached.
PS: I was tarring you with that brush, which is a shame because I agree with most things you say here.
@Stan – I can’t tell whether you’re tarring me with that brush but if you read my comment I clearly state that piracy isn’t right. However, it isn’t theft either – you appear to have swallowed the studio propaganda, presumably along with “one infringement = one lost sale”.
Using your British riots analogy, if someone smashes a window and takes something, they are denying the owner of that item the chance to sell it. The owner would also have payed for the item at wholesale so has suffered a loss. That is theft.
If that same person obtains an illegal copy of a movie or TV show by using their computer or by going to a car boot sale, they not only haven’t smashed anything, but the owner of the work can still sell copies of it.
If obtaining an illegal copy of something was theft, we wouldn’t need separate laws dealing with copyright infringement. The courts do not consider it to be theft. Only the studios and people such as yourself are pushing that point of view.
This case can’t possibly succeed based on public policy reasons.
To hold a supplier liable for what other people choose to do on their services is illogical.
That would mean ISPs are liable for defamatory comments people post or criminal activity online. Coffee places and bars that allow Free Wifi will now have to think twice because they would be liable for anything you choose to download.
Provided the ISPs “educate” people not to download, they will be legally covered.
Are the studios blaming Video Ezy and Civic for their customers stealing DVD’s too? Geez.
All you people below making excuses for the blatant theft of other people’s content. Reminds me of those British bogans that went on a rampage this last week, blaming everyone else for their illegal & immoral behaviour. The only difference here is they were stealing & smashing out in the open, not from their computer keyboards like you lot.
The lawyers are the winners here
Personally I think downloading movies is kind of crap. I think most of the arguments fall away pretty quickly as they are way more global and legitimately accessible. Anyways..I think with TV shows how ever there’s a strong case of, the networks do a poor job at scheduling. Sometimes they are good, other times you can’t even rely on a network to finish a season. Or they play episodes months out of date. Also sometimes you don’t know if a show will ever even be shown in Australia.
Channel 10 holds off the last 6 episodes of Modern Family, it’s crap but ultimately doesn’t matter. However for some shows, being aired on time with international broadcasts is really important.
People either download the show when it doesn’t air, or they completely isolate themselves online. Not listen to podcasts, read entertainment websites and so forth.
People enjoy being part of that global conversation and news when it comes to these things.Basically other wise you have to ignore it all. Which then also will lead to people watching less as they are less informed about what’s out there. As soon as original broadcast is really important for so many people with so many shows. I think most people would be fine to watch shows on TV if they air them properly.
Message to major tv networks – Show the latest episodes days after it shows in U.S and people won’t need to download. One good example is “The Office” steve carrell has left the show but ELEVEN are still showing 2010 episodes (about 12months behind). no wonder people download.
If the studio and network heads had pulled their heads out of their ar$es (and last century) and spent all this time and money on establishing an internet content distribution platform with reasonable pricing, we’d all be better off. The music industry went thru this exact same process years ago, and look where they are now – making a profit from selling digital copies of music online.
Piracy isn’t right, but when you look at the ridiculous prices for DVDs and cinema tickets ($10 to see a movie in the US), and the lack of legitimate on-line options, it’s not surprising that some people look for alternatives. But it also isn’t right of the studios and their attack-dog AFACT to be trying to lay the blame for any piracy at the feet of ISPs. And to expect them to act on unproven allegations from a third party is a reversal of the usual onus of proof of guilt established in our current legal system.
People just want to be able to access content in an easy and timely manner without paying an exorbitant price. It’s time the studios realised that we’re 11 years into the 21st century and they should stop bleating about how every new advance in technology is going to send them to the wall. It didn’t happen with the VCR, it didn’t happen with CD burners, it didn’t happen with PVRs, and it won’t happen with online content if they get their act together.
Gee Michael, you and I are exactly on the same wavelength.
I know it’s a test case but if the studios win will Telstra be held accountable if people use their phone network of criminal activities, maybe the studios can sue the NBN and Labor government?
If the TV networks would show things in HD and within days of them airing in the US/UK there would be alot less ‘copyright infringement’.
How about Seven fix the problem at the source (i.e. them) rather than trying to blame it on someone else.
I hope they get it handed to them and they can go back to concentrating on product and getting things to viewers faster! Waste of time and money!