I'd be interested to hear what people think the results of this decision will be on the bit-torrent downloads bizzo. (sceadugenga knows all the techy terms.)

iiNet slays Hollywood in landmark piracy case

The giants of the film industry have lost their case against ISP iiNet in a landmark judgment handed down in the Federal Court today.

The decision had the potential to impact internet users and the internet industry profoundly as it sets a legal precedent surrounding how much ISPs are required to do to prevent customers from downloading movies and other content illegally.

But after an on-and-off eight-week trial that examined whether iiNet authorised customers to download pirated movies, Justice Dennis Cowdroy found that the ISP was not liable for the downloading habits of its customers.

In a summary of his 200-page judgment read out in court this morning, Justice Cowdroy said the evidence established that iiNet had done no more than to provide an internet service to its users.

He found that, while iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring and did not act to stop them, such findings did not necessitate a finding of authorisation.

He said an ISP such as iiNet provided a legitimate communication facility, which was neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright.

He said it was only by means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements were enabled, but iiNet had no control over this system.

"iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user uses that system to bring about copyright infringement ... the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another," Justice Cowdroy said.

Link

I must admit, fuzzy-headed liberal judges can be really useful sometimes!

I must admit, fuzzy-headed liberal judges can be really useful sometimes!

Amen to that 

There is a fine line between piracy and sharing, a line that has not quite been defined yet and it may not be possible to do so. That article mentions bit torrent but bit torrent in itself is doing nothing illegal as it is merely offering a sharing service. Of course all torrent sites are loaded with disclaimers.

I must admit, fuzzy-headed liberal judges can be really useful sometimes!

Amen to that

There is a fine line between piracy and sharing, a line that has not quite been defined yet and it may not be possible to do so. That article mentions bit torrent but bit torrent in itself is doing nothing illegal as it is merely offering a sharing service. Of course all torrent sites are loaded with disclaimers.

Not such a fine line, I suggest.

When I buy a song on a cd, I have paid $xx for a copy of the artist's IP, that I may listen to as many times as I like, and I can share that listening pleasure with you whenever you visit my house or sit in my car.

If I allow you to transfer that IP to another medium so that YOU can then listen to it as many times as you like in YOUR home or car, then you have got a copy of the IP without the artist getting his percentage that he deserves. You should have paid the artist his due.

As for the judges decision...I think it was the right decision. ISP's can't be held responsible for what their customers do....if the ISP was to be held accountable, then they would have to be held accountable for child porn etc also. It is the pirates and pornographers that are the crims, not the ISP's.

I wasn't really concerned with the judges reasons, you'll always get people doubting the morality of a verdict while the judiciary are politically appointed.

I'm interested in how this will effect internet and general copyright piracy world wide.

It's hardly worth bothering with bit torrents downloads in Thailand, virtually everything we need, DVDs, Music CDs and software is commonly available from $1 to $3 a disk, provided we're prepare to lower our personal standards of honesty to purchase them.

It's big business in Western countries though, I know of one guy personally who used to buy a couple of DVDs legally a week who now downloads them.

The pirate stuff available in Thailand comes from bit torrent downloads in the first place. I'd rather download something in a few hours or overnight than take the time and expense to search around the island for what I want.

I started buying pirated CDs when I lived in a country where one store bought CD cost between 5-10% of the national average monthly salary. IMO that was ridiculous.

The Internet has always been about sharing things for free. That's the nature of the Internet.You see something on one site that you like, take it and use it on your own iste or share with others. Like posting a Johnny Cash video for example. How is that different than sharing music or videos via bit torrent? One is just a much larger file size that's all.

The music & movie industries aren't going broke. Not by a long shot. (US Domestic box office grosses surpassed $10 billion for the first time in 2009) These industries need to adapt to new technology just like they did when cassette tapes made it possible for people to copy & share music - legally. I wouldn't mind paying some nominal fee to be able to download things from ONE site, not several different ones. For a long time I used to download songs for about 10 cents each. Then bit torrents just got easier to use.

The pirate stuff available in Thailand comes from bit torrent downloads in the first place. I'd rather download something in a few hours or overnight than take the time and expense to search around the island for what I want.

I started buying pirated CDs when I lived in a country where one store bought CD cost between 5-10% of the national average monthly salary. IMO that was ridiculous.

The Internet has always been about sharing things for free. That's the nature of the Internet.You see something on one site that you like, take it and use it on your own iste or share with others. Like posting a Johnny Cash video for example. How is that different than sharing music or videos via bit torrent? One is just a much larger file size that's all.

The music & movie industries aren't going broke. Not by a long shot. (US Domestic box office grosses surpassed $10 billion for the first time in 2009) These industries need to adapt to new technology just like they did when cassette tapes made it possible for people to copy & share music - legally. I wouldn't mind paying some nominal fee to be able to download things from ONE site, not several different ones. For a long time I used to download songs for about 10 cents each. Then bit torrents just got easier to use.

So, your justifications for your thievery are because it's easy, the internet is all about sharing, and the movie and music industries can afford it......how very Socialist of you.

Latter day Robin Hood...rob from the rich benefit the poor.

In my opinion, your blase attitude towards ripping off artists is deplorable.

The pirate stuff available in Thailand comes from bit torrent downloads in the first place. I'd rather download something in a few hours or overnight than take the time and expense to search around the island for what I want.

I started buying pirated CDs when I lived in a country where one store bought CD cost between 5-10% of the national average monthly salary. IMO that was ridiculous.

The Internet has always been about sharing things for free. That's the nature of the Internet.You see something on one site that you like, take it and use it on your own iste or share with others. Like posting a Johnny Cash video for example. How is that different than sharing music or videos via bit torrent? One is just a much larger file size that's all.

The music & movie industries aren't going broke. Not by a long shot. (US Domestic box office grosses surpassed $10 billion for the first time in 2009) These industries need to adapt to new technology just like they did when cassette tapes made it possible for people to copy & share music - legally. I wouldn't mind paying some nominal fee to be able to download things from ONE site, not several different ones. For a long time I used to download songs for about 10 cents each. Then bit torrents just got easier to use.

So, your justifications for your thievery are because it's easy, the internet is all about sharing, and the movie and music industries can afford it......how very Socialist of you.

Latter day Robin Hood...rob from the rich benefit the poor.

In my opinion, your blase attitude towards ripping off artists is deplorable.

You are in constant attack mode, aren't you, Mr. Keyboard Warrior?

But of course, you have never downloaded anything without paying royalties. You have never had a friend share any music or movie that they downloaded without paying royalties. You have never shared anything on the Internet without paying royalties. If you are old enough, you probably never even made a cassette copy of music and shared with friends. If you have ever been to Thailand, you probably never bought any cheap software, music, videos, games or movies either. Yeah, right.

As for the poor artists, I care about them almost as much as they care about me.

As for "constant attack mode"....no I'm not. When you attack me, sure, you'll get it back, and then some, but otherwise I'm happy to carry on a normal conversation. (I recall a thread where I replied to you about a study of kids and learninng sounds....for example)

As for this subject, you have admitted that you steal and you provide you weak "justifications" and your arrogant couldn't-care-less attitude over the victims....of course I'm going to look at you with scorn and disrespect....and treat you accordingly.

What did you expect? That I'd applaud you????

I will call a spade a spade. You're a thief...no way around it.

As to your questions: Yes I used to make cassette copies in ignorant bliss, and download from the internet....untill I learnt that it was theft. I think alot of people my age did not consider this aspect of bit torrenting because we grew up with nobody (the artists) minding about dubbing tapes.

When it became an issue and was in the news.....of course I stopped!

If your "Mr Keyboard Warrior" is supposed to imply something..... hehehe, I think you would get a bit of a suprise if you knew me in person.

Sometimes the artists themselves are the thieves:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100204/D9DLJSJ01.html

Court says '80s hit `Down Under' copies kids' song

YDNEY (AP) - Australian band Men at Work copied a well-known children's campfire song for the flute melody in its 1980s hit "Down Under" and owes the owner years of royalties, a court ruled Thursday.

"Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree" was written more than 70 years ago by Australian teacher Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guides competition, and the song has been a favorite around campfires from New Zealand to Canada.

Adam Simpson, Larrikin Music's lawyer, said outside court the company might seek up to 60 percent of the royalties "Down Under" earned since its release - an amount that could total millions.

the sniping & bitching between harcourt & koheesti will stop now. Bedlam is a privilege not a right & admin have the power to remove you both from it. So debate in the spirit that OSTB is intended or place each other on ignore, otherwise find yourselves restricted. Up to you.

Here's an honest question regarding royalties. Give a legal answer or your own personal opinion. No one is obligated to answer if they feel it a trap of some sort.

If someone bought an original LP album of, say, The Beatles "Let it Be" in the store at one time, would it be so awful to download the album for free today? They've already paid the record company & artists at least once. Should they really be expected to pay each and every time they get the song(s) on a new medium (album, 8-track, cassette, CD, mp3, etc)? Or do you think once is enough?

Thay is a good point. Most people would think it was totally fine if a buddy recorded it for you.

The pirate stuff available in Thailand comes from bit torrent downloads in the first place. I'd rather download something in a few hours or overnight than take the time and expense to search around the island for what I want.

I think the judge made the right decision under the circumstances, though clearly theft is going on, the ISP does not promote it. Next i'd like to see all the <deleted> who spend all day and night downloading from these torrent sites get charged for bandwidth usage. That ought to speed up the net for the rest of us.

As for the judges decision...I think it was the right decision. ISP's can't be held responsible for what their customers do....if the ISP was to be held accountable, then they would have to be held accountable for child porn etc also. It is the pirates and pornographers that are the crims, not the ISP's.

Similarly, car manufacturers should be blamed and held responsible for drivers infringing traffic laws.

Yeah rite, imagine........

The pirate stuff available in Thailand comes from bit torrent downloads in the first place. I'd rather download something in a few hours or overnight than take the time and expense to search around the island for what I want.

I think the judge made the right decision under the circumstances, though clearly theft is going on, the ISP does not promote it. Next i'd like to see all the <deleted> who spend all day and night downloading from these torrent sites get charged for bandwidth usage. That ought to speed up the net for the rest of us.

Most people are asleep when I download so it should still be faster than in the middle of the day when more people are online. In some places they actually charge by how much bandwidth you use or limit everyone to a certain amount.

Here's an honest question regarding royalties. Give a legal answer or your own personal opinion. No one is obligated to answer if they feel it a trap of some sort.

If someone bought an original LP album of, say, The Beatles "Let it Be" in the store at one time, would it be so awful to download the album for free today? They've already paid the record company & artists at least once. Should they really be expected to pay each and every time they get the song(s) on a new medium (album, 8-track, cassette, CD, mp3, etc)? Or do you think once is enough?

I can see where you're coming from. Nonetheless, the IP belongs to somebody.

I don't know about your standards....as with morals, they are a matter of opinion.... but my mother taught me that stealing one cent is as dishonest as stealing a million dollars. Sure the effect will be different....but the dishonesty is the same.

As far as I know, Paul McCartney et al are still alive, or their heirs are. They own the IP. They own it.

The artists' careers are based on the principle that an audience will pay to hear/see them perform.

To obtain your copy without paying your due, offends the artist.....but it also offends the genuine paying audience....when you share, or accept someone's offer to share, ....it's tantamount to you sneaking in to a venue, unlocking the back gate and letting in a bunch of non ticket holder mates...sure, you all get a free concert, that feels good..... but everyone else has paid.....why not everyone just sneak in and the artist gets nothing for his talent and work?

If you owned a shop...would you be happy that most people paid, but some people shoplifted? Would the prices you place on your goods take into account the stock shrinkage due to theft?

As a shopper, I need to place some blame for the high prices on the shoplifters because if they were honest and didn't steal, the price I pay will come down.

You can cite numerous artists that genuinely would not miss the fifty cent royalty, and the production company would not miss the six dollars commission....... but your fifty cents is just one of....how many other fifty cents'?

What about the artists that lead the true bohemian life? There are many. I'm sure your single fifty cent coin actually would be appreciated and deserved.

Using your argument that they are rich enough not for it to matter....where is the line drawn between the already-rich-enough artists, and the artists that still need every fifty cent? Where? What rationale behind that imaginary line being placed at any particular point?

That's just using your argument.

My argument was that it is a dishonest practice...and I realise now, that I forgot that it is only MY opinion (I had arrogantly assumed that honesty was a generally accepted norm)

Since it's only my opinion...lets debate this just on your view of things.

the sniping & bitching between harcourt & koheesti will stop now. Bedlam is a privilege not a right & admin have the power to remove you both from it. So debate in the spirit that OSTB is intended or place each other on ignore, otherwise find yourselves restricted. Up to you.

Thanks Boo. I needed a kick in the pants.

from my point of view, i just got fed up with waiting for the promise of cd's becoming less exp than the old albums they replaced.

at the time i was jr. audio file and had a considerbale amount of money wrapped up in my turn table, then the cd format was introduced and an album went from as little as 2.99 to 12.00 dollars to a min of 14.00 to 35.00 dollars but the promise was; cd's would last forever, not scratch, and the price would drop to less than the old format once it was in mass production well some 20 yr later the price of a cd was still high, the cd's did scratch and they do not last for ever. in my opinion i was cheated for far too long and i decided i was not going to accept it any longer. I feel no guilt buying a pirates, and the less i pay the happier i am. i dont take the time to download but if i was willing to learn how i would and if an artist ever called me a thief i would say they may reconsider who is the real cheat.

In retrospect, CDs were a big con. The sound was not as good as LPs. We were promised that they would "last forever" and that they would not skip and that the prices would go down quickly. All of these things were lies and we all got rid of our LPs and bought the same CDs all over again.

I am hoping that the public is not so gullible when it comes to the ebook hype, but I will not hold my breath.

In retrospect, CDs were a big con. The sound was not as good as LPs. We were promised that they would "last forever" and that they would not skip and that the prices would go down quickly. All of these things were lies and we all got rid of our LPs and bought the same CDs all over again.

I am hoping that the public is not so gullible when it comes to the ebook hype, but I will not hold my breath.

I realise that you make a living out of books UG but what's wrong with ebooks? They won't stop people like me buying 'proper' books but having an ebook reader means that instead of carrying 4 or 5 books in my luggage when I visit LoS I can stick my little Sony ereader with 50 books on it into my bag. Much more convenient.

In retrospect, CDs were a big con. The sound was not as good as LPs. We were promised that they would "last forever" and that they would not skip and that the prices would go down quickly. All of these things were lies and we all got rid of our LPs and bought the same CDs all over again.

I am hoping that the public is not so gullible when it comes to the ebook hype, but I will not hold my breath.

I realise that you make a living out of books UG but what's wrong with ebooks? They won't stop people like me buying 'proper' books but having an ebook reader means that instead of carrying 4 or 5 books in my luggage when I visit LoS I can stick my little Sony ereader with 50 books on it into my bag. Much more convenient.

How much does an ebook cost? Hardback prices? Paperback prices? Lower? Fifty ebooks at $26.95 each is going to get expensive. Even $10 would still be $500.

I have no problem with ebooks if they compete with paper books on a level playing ground. They would be useful in certain ways that paper books are not and share the market.

However, I am very afraid that publishers will try to get rid of paper books completely and shove ebooks down our throats in the same way that manufacturers did with CDs. They would save money on paper and distribution and after they convinced everyone to switch to machines, they would put the prices up and pocket their savings. No trees are going to be saved - that is bullshit - they will use the paper for something else.

Amazon is selling downloads for $10 each at the moment, but some publishers are demanding already that they raise prices by about 50% and possibly more in the future.

I do not think that ebooks will be as good a product as paper books for decades - if ever, but if they are phased out, consumers will have no choice in the matter. The time to speak up about keeping paper books around is now.

Why do we have royalties for intellectual property like music and films in the first place? In the USA, any music being piped into a restaurant must have royalties paid on it or else you can get in trouble. I worked in places where you had to play only approved tapes that you paid for where royalties were paid. You took a big risk playing cassettes you made at home.

I can buy a book and pass it on to other people without the author or publisher getting more money out of the deal. Granted, I won't photo copy War & Peace but it is done with textbooks all the time. Maybe not cover to cover, but definitely parts of it. Don't publishers and writers of textbooks deserve to get paid for their work?

What about paintings? When people buy tickets to an art gallery, does the artist or his descendants get a cut?

In retrospect, CDs were a big con. The sound was not as good as LPs. We were promised that they would "last forever" and that they would not skip and that the prices would go down quickly. All of these things were lies and we all got rid of our LPs and bought the same CDs all over again.

I am hoping that the public is not so gullible when it comes to the ebook hype, but I will not hold my breath.

I realise that you make a living out of books UG but what's wrong with ebooks? They won't stop people like me buying 'proper' books but having an ebook reader means that instead of carrying 4 or 5 books in my luggage when I visit LoS I can stick my little Sony ereader with 50 books on it into my bag. Much more convenient.

How much does an ebook cost? Hardback prices? Paperback prices? Lower? Fifty ebooks at $26.95 each is going to get expensive. Even $10 would still be $500.

There's the whole of Project Gutenberg to read before you have to start spending a penny.

Much more convenient.

There in lies the rub

It is the direction they will probably take. The writing is on th wall so to speak...

While some merchants may ask for a level playing field it is the public who decides with their $$$

Some may claim CD's are not as good as LP's but for most it is more than good enough.

That is coming from me... a true analog guy who still builds tube amplifiers & uses NOS RCA tubes.

It is what it is & it is the direction of things to come. None can say how they will fair in the future as technology keeps moving forward.

It does save resources/trees etc... & in the same way as CD's are much more sturdy than LP's...hard to scratch...no warping due to weather etc... Many will go this way if nothing else but for the reason you stated endure....convenience

The movie people have been trying to make 3D movies popular for something like 50 years and they still have not caught on in a big way. Just because something is new does not always mean that it will take over the market - especially when the new technology is unnecessary or inferior to what it is trying to replace.

As to Project Gutenburg, it might be useful for schools or a small percentage of readers, but not for the masses. In general, they do not want to read this stuff very often - even for free.

What remains to be seen is if the Big Boys can force everyone in the industry to stop publishing on paper. I am pretty sure that if the public has a choice between an awkward gizmo and a real book, ebooks will be around for certain select uses, but never take over the market.

It does save resources/trees etc...

"Saved" for what? This is the biggest lie of the whole ebook scam. The wood will simply be used for something else. The only thing that will be "saved" is operating costs for publishers. They plan on cutting costs for paper and distribution and saving a bundle, but the chance of this being passed on to consumers is slim to none.

They know that the vast majority of consumers have no real interest in changing reading formats and it has to be sold somehow, so all of a sudden they have gone green - as in cash money.

We get stuck with a whole bunch of unneeded, expensive, clunky machines and they make a shitload of money. The sad thing is that not one tree will be saved.

"Saved" for what?

it is the public who decides with their $$$