[LINK] Does copyright have a future? [WAS: iinet wins!!]

[Martin Barry]

$quoted_author = "Kim Holburn" ;
> 
> I don't think it's nearly that simple and it has never really been  
> tested properly in court (IANAL).  Like I said, how much (how many  
> parts) of a file do you have to share to prove significant  
> infringement?

This was all covered in the recent judgement. Even though he found iiNet did
not authorise the infringement, he still analysed how a court would treat
the use of bittorrent to obtain copyright material without licence.

Essentially he deemed that if someone managed to download a complete file
then it is likely they uploaded the same amount of data to other peers and
hence has "made available online" a "substantial portion" of the copyright
material.


> Like I said, catching one person sharing a $12.99 file, how much is  
> that going to cost and how much disruption to the family on the  
> painful end of this.

It is extremely cheap to identify the IP of an offender. Obtaining the
details of the account holder associated with that IP and the relevant time
would take a short hearing and court order.

It's narrowing it down to the actual person who committed the act that is
the problem...

 
> Like I said, you have to go from an IP address to a particular  
> computer.  OK they descend on a family and impound all the family's  
> computers, phones, ipods, hard disks, memory sticks?  And the wireless  
> leecher from next door and his or her family as well?

Is the ISP account holder responsible for all use of their Internet
connection? Does AFACT have to do discovery to find the exact computer used
and from that identify the individual?

 
> Still costs and, as seen in America, everyone gets hurt not just the  
> defendants.

Given someone of the terrible publicity some of the court cases have
provided it's not surprising AFACT is keen not to go down that path.

cheers
Marty