I love Australia, beautiful country, people and landscape. It’s nice to write about a place which next year I hope to visit.
It’s being reported on Torrentfreak that AFACT (the Australian version of what us Brits have – FACT) is appealing a previous decision in a copyright infringement case against iiNet.
I would recommend you read the Torrentfreak article, but in a nut-shell it goes something like this. AFACT wants to take the ISP to court due to allowing its users to download copyrighted material, on the grounds that despite providing evidence to the ISP, the ISP did nothing to prevent it’s users from doing it. In the UK (and inappropriately applied to Criminal Law) it would be something akin to “aiding and abetting”…sort of.
After the case had finished though, AFACT did not get the ruling they had hoped for and hence now they are appealing the decision.
As I say, Torrentfreak (as usual) covers this very well and I’m going to consider it from a slightly different angle. I believe that AFACT v ISP should be encouraged by the file-sharing community who believe the “early settlement” letters are wrong. Why? Let me explain.
Look at your ISP for a minute. I think its fair to say they make a lot of money out of yours and everyone else’s subscription. They offer faster and faster packages…you can get the speed you want, for a price. If we assume that the user is targeted in the main for the copyright infringement issues they are alleged to have committed, do you really think the ISP cares what you download or share? I’d say no, as long as they get their monthly subscription fee and don’t get any nasty law suits because of it. You only have to look towards the adverts ISP’s produce, they certainly don’t mention anything about possible copyright infringement and of the ones I’ve seen there is a certain undertone in them which sells you their packages on what you can download.
So whilst the ISP’s are sitting counting the cash, it’s the end-user who is receiving letters from ACS:Law and co. Why should they care? And if people think some ISP’s reluctance to hold back details of their customers from those investigating copyright infringement, I believe you should think again. I think the reluctance to divulge user details is more to do with retaining existing customers and convincing new one’s that they are the “good guys”
No ISP is above the law. A court order WILL FORCE your ISP to reveal your details, no matter how “good” the intentions of your ISP.
I said in an article a while ago that I believed copyright infringement should be the responsibility of the ISP, not the end-user. The knock-on effect of this would be that ISP’s would self regulate an “evil” which I would tolerate instead of the situation we have now where the apparent “fill your boots” attitude by the ISP’s has the end-user suffering at the hands of potential court cases.
If we look at the “real world”, a landlord/lady of a Pub is pretty much responsible for the conduct of his/her pub. Should things continue out of hand and the “trouble makers” be allowed to drink in it, then they may well find that their license is revoked or simply not renewed. The same could be applied to ISP’s.
Maybe if AFACT are successful, it could set a precedent, which whilst not ideal, would stop the end-user relieving worrying letters through the post and make the ISP themselves take responsibility? – Food for thought there.
AFACT – Is that “a fact”?
I could not finish this article without posting some observations in regards to their site. It’s really great stuff and in particular its “comic” aimed at children in regards to piracy is entertaining (if not somewhat disturbing) reading.
The “comic” and I use that term very loosely as it puts me very much in mind of the WWII propaganda aimed at children, when one side was trying to demonize the other.
The comic tells the story of two lads who decide to download Transformers from a P2P tracker, what happens next is a bizarre combination of spy satellites and malware infections that have allegedly come from a movie file even before its downloaded.
The childs fear of the parents is played on too when it shows their father becoming a victim of this “malicious software” as a result of their downloading. Moving on, it then transports the children into a bad LSD trip type experience where they are chased by malware only to be saved by the hero’s who shows them the error of their ways and saves the day. Awful stuff and as far as I’m concerned the age group that this is aimed at would be far too savvy to fall for this. Whilst they may miss its intended target, it is great “computer baffled” parent fodder and whilst the kids will dismiss it, I think parents who maybe didn’t grow up with computing being the norm, will swallow it hook & line.
ACADEMIC RESEARCH FINDS VAST MAJORITY OF BITTORRENT TRAFFIC ILLEGAL
which if we look past the “illegal” (and say infringes copyright instead) doesn’t come as a shock to anyone. One look at Pirate Bay would tell you that. Someone commissioned research to come up with that ground-breaking result? Maybe that comic wasn’t so silly, maybe AFACT are clueless? Go on, try it yourself. With the exception of the few trackers that cover Linux distro’s or Creative Commons work, I’d guess a majority of copyright infringing material is the conclusion you will come to in seconds. People champion the BT protocol as a great tech as it is, we all know what the vast majority of people use it for.
AFACT also have a nice little video for other users who don’t buy the possibility of malware being present in a movie file and infecting your machine even before you have finished downloading it. The video features Roy Billings and he wants to tell you about the harm of piracy:
its not a victim less crime, its people like me
At which point (after a quick cringe) I switched it off. If AFACT wished to put a point across about piracy making victims of those in the industry, the successful career (and the fact he’s reported to have landed a role in the new Narnia film) would say Mr Billing is not the person to make it.
Readers of this site will know that I have had a strong anti-piracy stance for many years. Its tot like this (and the actions of ACS:Law et al) which have made me question that view. Thats a different article though and ACS:Law will be followed up very shortly with one all of their own.
So we leave this piece with AFACT in the process of appeal. Copyright infringing file sharers supporting the ISP, ISP’s collecting monthly payment from you and a big question mark over how far an ISP would go to protect your details if a court order was served on it.
I’ll let you make your own mind up, reminding you that your ISP is in business to make money.
Finally, to end on a happier note, lets remind ourselves of the attempt at propaganda against piracy in the UK, which sort of backfired and turned into a cult classic:
Goblin – firstname.lastname@example.org
If you are new to this blog (or have not yet read it) please take time to view the OpenBytes statement, here.