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

[Stilgherrian]

On 09/02/2010, at 6:42 PM, Martin Barry wrote:
> $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.

I read it as a little more precise than that. At the point that a participant in a BitTorrent swarm obtains the last piece of a file, their status in the swarm is changed to "seeder", indicating that they are now offering the entire file. At that point, it can be said that they are "making available" the copyright material.

Justice Cowdroy was at pains to stress that looking at this problem at the level of "pieces" or "packets" was wrong.

He also seemed to indicate that more complex interpretations would be required to make a finding of "make available" before the entire file was downloaded.


> 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...
> [snip]
> 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?

Again, Justice Cowdroy spent some time pointing out that acts are performed by people, not computers.

I have spoken with an infosec forensic specialist who told me that a lot of his work is about proving that the specific human, the one being charged, was the one who performed the acts which were performed using a specific computer at a specific time. Or not, depending on whether he was hired by the prosecution team or the defence.

Stil


-- 
Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/
Internet, IT and Media Consulting, Sydney, Australia
mobile +61 407 623 600
fax +61 2 8569 2006
Twitter: stilgherrian
Skype: stilgherrian
ABN 25 231 641 421