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

[Kim Holburn]

On 2010/Feb/09, 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.

It's not true.  It really depends on a number of other factors  
including what the client's download ratio has been set.

The problem as I see it is that iinet wasn't contesting that its users  
were infringing copyright.  So the bittorrrent info wasn't contested,  
therefore not really tested in court.

>> 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 would only take a couple of court cases and people would change  
their habits and it would become not so cheap or easy.

> 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?

Not so simple.

>> 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.

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request