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

[Stilgherrian]

On 09/02/2010, at 8:16 PM, Kim Holburn wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, can you clarify? Which isn't true? That this wasn't the test applied by Cowdroy J? Or that the BitTorrent protocol is more complex than he portrayed in his judgement?


> 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.

I believe this to be true, yes.

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