In a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Texas, Voltage sought to identify illegal downloaders of the movie by providing the IP addresses of Internet subscribers to the court. Their aim – to scare those individuals into making cash settlements to make supposed lawsuits disappear.

Now, in the most significant development of the ‘trolling’ model in recent times, Dallas Buyers Club LLC are trying to expand their project into Australia. Interestingly the studio has chosen to take on subscribers of the one ISP that was absolutely guaranteed to put up a fight.

iiNet is Australia’s second largest ISP and the country’s leading expert when it comes to fighting off aggressive rightsholders. In 2012 the ISP defeated Hollywood in one of the longest piracy battles ever seen and the company says it will defend its subscribers in this case too.

Chief Regulatory Officer Steve Dalby says that Dallas Buyers Club LLC (DBCLLC) recently applied to the Federal Court to have iiNet and other local ISPs reveal the identities of people they say have downloaded and/or shared their movie without permission.

According to court documents seen by TorrentFreak the other ISPs involved are Wideband Networks Pty Ltd, Internode Pty Ltd, Dodo Services Pty Ltd, Amnet Broadband Pty Ltd and Adam Internet Pty Ltd.

Although the stance of the other ISPs hasn’t yet been made public, DBCLLC aren’t going to get an easy ride. iiNet (which also owns Internode and Adam) says it will oppose the application for discovery.

“iiNet would never disclose customer details to a third party, such as movie studio, unless ordered to do so by a court. We take seriously both our customers’ privacy and our legal obligations,” Dalby says.

While underlining that the company does not condone copyright infringement, news of Dallas Buyers Club / Voltage Pictures’ modus operandi has evidently reached iiNet, and the ISP is ready for them.

“It might seem reasonable for a movie studio to ask us for the identity of those they suspect are infringing their copyright. Yet, this would only make sense if the movie studio intended to use this information fairly, including to allow the alleged infringer their day in court, in order to argue their case,” Dalby says.

“In this case, we have serious concerns about Dallas Buyers Club’s intentions. We are concerned that our customers will be unfairly targeted to settle any claims out of court using a practice called ‘speculative invoicing’.”

The term ‘speculative invoicing’ was coined in the UK in response to the activities of companies including the now defunct ACS:Law, which involved extracting cash settlements from alleged infringers (via mailed ‘invoices’) and deterring them from having their say in court. Once the scheme was opened up to legal scrutiny it completely fell apart.

Some of the flaws found to exist in both UK and US ‘troll’ cases are cited by iiNet, including intimidation of subscribers via excessive claims for damages. The ISP also details the limitations of IP address-based evidence when it comes to identifying infringers due to shared household connections and open wifi scenarios.

“Because Australian courts have not tested these cases, any threat by rights holders, premised on the outcome of a successful copyright infringement action, would be speculative,” Dalby adds.

The Chief Regulatory Officer says that since iiNet has opposed the action for discovery the Federal Court will now be asked to decide whether iiNet should hand over subscriber identities to DBCLLC. A hearing on that matter is expected early next year and it will be an important event.

While a win for iiNet would mean a setback for rightsholders plotting similar action, victory for DBCLLC will almost certainly lead to others following in their footsteps. For an idea of what Australians could face in this latter scenario, in the United States the company demands payment of up to US$7,000 (AUS$8,000) per infringement.

_{Photo: Michael Theis}

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Much of the negotiations have Attorney-General George Brandis at their core, with the Senator regularly being accused of lacking transparency.

This week Aussie news outlet Crikey obtained (subscription) a leaked copy of a discussion paper in which Brandis and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull seek industry feedback on new anti-piracy proposals.

The discussion paper

Dated July 2014, the paper begins by outlining the Government’s perception of the piracy threat, noting that all players – from content creators to ISPs and consumers – have a role to play in reducing the illegal consumption of content.

It continues with details of schemes operating in the United States (Six-Strikes), UK (VCAP) and New Zealand which aim to develop consumer attitudes through education and mitigation. Inevitably, however, the paper turns to legislation, specifically what can be tweaked in order to give movie studios and record labels the tools they need to reduce infringement

ISP liability

The 2012 High Court ruling in the iiNet case signaled the end of movie and TV studio litigation against service providers. With their dream of holding ISPs responsible for the actions of their pirating users in tatters, copyright holders would need new tools to pursue their aims. It’s clear that Brandis now wants to provide those via a change in the law.

“The Government believes that even when an ISP does not have a direct power to prevent a person from doing a particular infringing act, there still may be reasonable steps that can be taken by the ISP to discourage or reduce online copyright infringement,” the paper reads.

“Extending authorization liability is essential to ensuring the existence of an effective legal framework that encourages industry cooperation and functions as originally intended, and is consistent with Australia’s international obligations.”

“The Government is looking to industry to reach agreement on appropriate industry schemes or commercial arrangements on what would constitute ‘reasonable steps’ to be taken by ISPs,” the paper notes.

Website blocking

Given several signals on the topic earlier this year, it comes as no surprise that website blocking is under serious consideration. The paper outlines blocking mechanisms in Europe, particularly the UK and Ireland, which allow for court injunctions to be issued against ISPs.

The Irish model, which has already blocked sites including The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents, is of special interest to the Australian Government, since proving that an ISP had knowledge of infringing conduct is not required to obtain an injunction.

“A similar provision in Australian law could enable rights holders to take action to block access to a website offering infringing material, without the need to establish that a particular ISP authorized an infringement,” the paper notes, adding that such provisions would only apply to websites outside Aussie jurisdiction.

It’s likely that most copyright holders will be largely in favor of the Government’s proposals on the points detailed above, but whether ISPs will share their enthusiasm remains to be seen.

Stakeholders are expected to return their submissions by Monday 25th August.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The decision did nothing to change the positions of either company and in recent weeks a very public dispute broke out between iiNet Chief Regulatory Officer Steve Dalby and Village Roadshow co-CEO Graham Burke. The topic? The former’s continued but now legally supported refusal to take responsibility the activities of its customers.

While some may have a level of sympathy with Burke’s predicament, retreading old ground over ISP liability can hardly be the solution. Today even more inflammables were thrown onto the fire.

Should a knife manufacturer be held responsible for what happened in the Psycho shower scene? Should Ford be held liable for a drunk driver piloting one of their vehicles? These rhetorical questions have well-trodden answers, but Burke hasn’t been paying attention.

In a new interview with CNET, Burke again attacked Dalby, accusing him of “distorting the picture” in the face of the Village Roadshow chief’s self-claimed fairness.

“For him to be continuing to distort the picture when he clearly knows otherwise is very depressing,” Burke said. “I’m dealing with it in a transparent and open and honest way and I wished we could get that from iiNet.”

And then the bombshell.

“iiNet are selling a car which happens to kill people on the roads, so they should be paying towards that. It’s the car that’s faulty. In this instance it’s the fault of the car, not the driver. They’re providing a service which enables people to steal other people’s property, so…some of the costs should be theirs,” Burke said.

“All Mr Dalby wants is to continue to have this extraordinary smorgasbord of product that’s made by creative people, with the sweat of their passion and labors, and that he can have a mechanism where he can be the conduit that provides that free and he clips the ticket. He’s complicit.”

Clearly there is nothing inherently faulty with iiNet’s service. It’s essentially an empty pipe that the customer can fill in the manner of his choosing, and one that’s no more broken than the postal or telephone systems that preceded it. Nevertheless, Burke still wants to shoot the messenger and Dalby is having none of it.

There can be no doubt that Village Roadshow and its Hollywood affiliates feel they have a big problem to solve, but with arguments like these it’s easy to see how the dispute with iiNet has gone on for so long. Indeed, there appears to have been no progress made in half a decade.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that the government will step in with the three strikes system that Burke is pushing hard for. If that happens, Burke will have “won”, but when that victory will arrive is another matter entirely, raising the specter of yet more out-of-date legislation before it even arrives.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

If the government is to be believed, many of the issues could be solved if copyright holders and Internet service providers would only shake hands, sit down for lunch, and agree on the best way to punish their errant subscribers. Trouble is, they’ve tried that, it didn’t work, and Hollywood – via local movie company Village Roadshow – ended up suing ISP iiNet.

The record showed that iiNet won that battle in a big way, leaving Hollywood licking its wounds and banking on a return to voluntary discussions. Sadly, as recently confirmed in the senate, those talks are dead, but that hasn’t stopped both iiNet and Village Roadshow making their feelings known.

Last week iiNet Chief Regulatory Officer Steve Dalby urged his customers to fight back against attempts to introduce fresh legislation, something which prompted Village Roadshow co-CEO Graham Burke to make his own voice heard. In an interview with Gizmodo yesterday, on more than one occasion Burke accused iiNet of lying over piracy.

Outrageous liars – the gloves are off

“It’s sad that to forward their case, [iiNet] use what they must know is a fabric of lies,” Burke said.

“They’re saying that there’s no proof that graduated response works. They’re instancing a number of countries where graduated response was frustrated by lobbying and the power of Google, which pays little to no tax in Australia and creates nothing,” he said, going on to attack Dalby directly.

“Some of the stuff Steve Dalby has said is just outrageous, and he’s got to know its outrageous too,” Burke said.

Not content with letting Burke have the last word, after the publication of the Gizmodo piece Dalby fired back, accusing the CEO of calling Australians “content thieves” without revealing their huge contribution to the industry.

The fightback – outrageous!

“Perhaps we’ve touched a nerve,” Dalby began. “Mr Burke is obviously concerned about the increasing threat to his ‘middle-man’ status by the changes in technology and has failed to mention his colleague Simon Bush’s comments that the (Aust Home Entertainment Distributor’s Assoc) figures showed that ‘on a per capita basis Australia is second only to the United States in digital consumer revenues’.”

“So Australians are not only the worst pirates, but one of their best performing markets. Outrageous!” Dalby said.

Clearly riled at being described as “outrageous”, Dalby suggested that Burke should look in the mirror.

“Mr Burke suggests that my comments are outrageous. I’m sure he doesn’t like us pointing out some of the outrageous suggestions from his own industry. You know … stuff like ‘You wouldn’t steal a car, you wouldn’t steal a handbag’.”

“It’s not our job to catch car thieves. It’s not our job to catch bag-snatchers. It’s not our job to stop on-line infringers. Whoa ! Outrageous!” Dalby fired back.

Responding to Burke’s earlier claim that iiNet makes the most money from pirating customers so has a clear incentive to let them continue, Dalby said that Burke doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Movie boss is ignorant

“Mr Burke also shows his ignorance of the ISP revenue model. Not only is he totally wrong, but I think he fails to be outrageous. The ISP subscription model, commonly in place in Australia, does not charge by the download, as he suggests, it is a fixed fee per month. In that model ( a bit like gym membership) the less data a customer uses, the more profitable they are,” Dalby explained.

“This was an argument that failed the logic test in the High Court, but don’t let that get in the way of your outrage Mr Burke.”

And then, the inevitable. Local companies and anti-piracy outfits in piracy disputes often claim to be protecting local artists, yet as we saw in New Zealand, when subscribers got their first strike notices they were for artists like Rihanna and Lady GaGa. This type of scenario has not escaped the iiNet man.

Doing Hollywood’s bidding

“Finally, if this is all about protecting 906,000 Aussie jobs why is it that not one single example of Aussie content ever gets a mention. It’s always about American movies, music and TV,” Dalby said.

“If you want to protect Aussie jobs, Mr Burke, how about you turn up to the industry talks and put something on the table? Where is the quid-pro-quo for Australian ISPs to do the bidding of your American masters?”

“No. I thought not,” Dalby concludes.

The final bell – for now

It’s pretty rare these days to see this kind of public dueling, but after the legal trauma Hollywood and Village Roadshow put iiNet through, it’s not really a surprise that diplomacy is in tatters. Voluntary agreement still possible this year? Let’s get them on Jerry Springer to find out.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Brandis has, however, consulted deeply with the entertainment industries. His proposals for solving the piracy issue are straight out of the MPAA and RIAA cookbook – three strikes and account terminations for errant Internet users plus ISP blockades of torrent and similar sites.

The reason why the debate over these measures has dragged on so long is down to the defeat of the studios in their legal battle against ISP iiNet. That case failed to render the ISP responsible for the actions of its subscribers and ever since iiNet has provided the most vocal opposition to tough anti-piracy proposals. Today, iiNet Chief Regulatory Officer Steve Dalby underlined that stance with a call for consumers to fight back against “foreign interests.”

“The Hollywood Studios have been relentlessly lobbying the Australian Government on a range of heavy-handed solutions, from a ‘three strikes’ proposal, through to website filtering – none of which take consumers’ interests into account,” Dalby explains.

On three strikes, Dalby notes that even though customers will be expected to pick up the bill for its introduction, there’s no evidence that these schemes have curtailed piracy or increased sales in any other country.

“This leaves us asking why Hollywood might think this approach would work in Australia when it doesn’t even work in their own patch,” he says.

While Dalby believes that the studios’ imposition of ‘three-strikes’ will do little to solve the problem, his opposition to overseas interference is perhaps most visible in his attitudes towards site blocking.

“Why would the Australian government let a foreign company dictate which websites our citizens can access? Are our legislators captured by foreign interests? Should we allow American commercial interest to dictate Australian national policy?” he questions.

Perhaps inevitably, Dalby says that piracy has only blossomed in Australia due to a failure to serve the market, and the studios must address that first.

“Copyright holders have shown us that they’re not interested in new models for Australians, despite the success of services such as Netflix, Amazon and Hulu in the USA,” he explains.

“The pattern of US traffic Internet now depends on what content is made available via legitimate distribution channels like Netflix, rather than on the Pirate Bay. Giving your competitor a ten-year head start distributing a ‘free’ alternative is pretty stupid. No wonder the content industry is uncompetitive, with that attitude.”

Demand for legal content exists, Dalby says, but only if consumers aren’t subjected to release delays and uncompetitive pricing.

“And that’s the fundamental difference between iiNet and the rights holders. They want to tackle how customers are pirating content. We want them to look at why, and then move forward, addressing the cause, not the symptom,” he says.

Alongside calls for Australians to lobby their MPs, Dalby says he hopes that Hollywood and the government decide to take a more positive approach to solving the problem.

“Until that time, we’ll continue to push for a better future for Australian content users, one removed from the constraints being discussed in Canberra,” he concludes.

Dalby’s attack on the proposals currently on the table shows that a voluntary agreement between iiNet and rightsholders is as far away as ever, an indication that the years-long battle is far from over.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The music and movie industries have persuaded some to begin sending warning notifications to subscribers which advise them that their infringing activities have been monitored. In addition to a few less high-profile projects, large scale schemes are underway in France, New Zealand and a similar operation is about to launch in the United States.

In other countries negotiations have been less fruitful. Australia became a notable failure after discussions on infringement developed into parallel legal action against an ISP. The Hollywood-affiliated video industry there thought it could convince a court to hold the ISP iiNet responsible for the activities of alleged infringers. It couldn’t.

Despite the legal action, negotiations between rightsholders and ISPs, pushed along by the Attorney General’s Department, have continued in the hope that an agreement can still be reached. But for iiNet, it’s the end of the road.

Chief Regulatory Officer at iiNet Steve Dalby said his company has pulled out of the talks and lays the blame firmly at the feet of the entertainment companies.

“The conversation has failed to move on. The rights holders are still insisting ISP’s should perform work on their behalf instead of addressing what we have always said is the root cause of the infringements – the limited accessibility to desirable content and the discriminatory and high cost of content in Australia. Infringements are a symptom – access is the problem,” he said.

Dalby is clear – the industry’s problems are being driven by the mechanics of their own business model. If piracy is to be reduced then work has to be done to bring timely and reasonably-priced content to online consumers. iiNet, he says, is still happy to work with the industry to make that happen.

“iiNet has repeatedly and publicly called on the studios and content owners to enter into commercial discussions for the digital distribution of their desirable content.

“The law as it stands has given clarity; this whole idea that people will wait 12-18 months; consumers are just not buying it. You’ve got to address what is now a broken model from last century,” he said, quoting from iiNet’s court battle with the studios.

But while the lack of timely and reasonably-priced content is a serious flaw, that is only part of the problem.

Any notice scheme requires ISPs to store data which ties their customers to alleged infringements which of course has privacy implications. Over in the United States there have been concerns that the information gathered as part of “six strikes” could be used for more than just warnings. Sure enough, last week it was revealed that the data voluntarily retained by ISPs could end up being used to file lawsuits against customers.

According to Dalby, this will not happen at iiNet.

“iiNet won’t support any scheme that forces ISPs to retain data in order to allow for the tracking of customer behaviour and the status of any alleged infringements against them. Collecting and retaining additional customer data at this level is inappropriate, expensive and most importantly, not our responsibility,” Dalby says.

And this – the issue of responsibility – rounds off iiNet’s comprehensive rejection and exit from the talks.

“It’s not iiNet’s job to play online police. The High Court spoke loud and clear in their verdict when they ruled categorically that ISPs have no obligation to protect the rights of third parties, and we’re not prepared to harass our customers when the industry has no clear obligation to do so,” Dalby states.

It will be a serious concern, particularly to the Hollywood studios, that not only has it proven impossible to force iiNet to comply through the courts, but that negotiation on the issue of piracy has failed too. It is now up to rightsholders to make the next move.

“Hollywood, you know where we are. It’s time to change the tune,” Dalby concludes.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The case navigated several layers of the Australian court system, with iiNet winning the initial ruling and all subsequent appeals, before finally ending up in front the High Court in December last year.

The thrust of the case hung on whether iiNet had willingly authorized the copyright infringements of its customers. Lower courts found that iiNet had no duty to police its own networks, even when AFACT supplied so-called proof of infringement by its customers.

Just moments ago, the High Court unanimously dismissed AFACT’s final appeal.

“The Court observed that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright,” a summary of the Court’s findings read.

“Rather, the extent of iiNet’s power to prevent its customers from infringing the appellants’ copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual relationship with its customers.”

The High Court further noted that the warning notices previously sent to iiNet by AFACT when the ISP’s customers allegedly infringed copyright “..did not provide iiNet with a reasonable basis for sending warning notices to individual customers containing threats to suspend or terminate those customers’ accounts.”

Since the notices were inadequate, iiNet could not be considered to have authorized the infringements of its subscribers when it did not act on them.

The High Court sits at the pinnacle of Australia’s legal system and its rulings cannot be appealed. Today’s decision forms a binding legal precedent on all lower Australian courts and will be taken into consideration by judges in countries with comparable legal systems such as India, Canada and the UK.

All of this factored into the reasoning of AFACT and its chief sponsor the MPAA to take legal action against iiNet, as revealed by US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in November 2011. The US Ambassador to Australia in 2008, Robert McCallum, reported back to Washington that iiNet was chosen because it was judged too small to put up a decent legal fight. In the cable, the Ambassador prophetically cautioned the coming legal tussle could be perceived as “…the giant American bullies [versus] little Aussie battlers….”

AFACT could never have known Wikileaks would out the plot, or that the legal case would so spectacularly backfire. Today’s decision will hurt Hollywood’s copyright enforcement agenda on multiple levels. Alongside the setting of an unwanted legal precedent, AFACT has been dealt a significant public relations blow in its ongoing lobbying efforts in Australia.

Prior to the decision, AFACT’s Managing Director Neil Gane told TorrentFreak via email, “Regardless of the outcome [today], the landscape has changed. In the three years since the case commenced, legislators, regulators and courts around the world have recognized that ISPs must play a central role in preventing online copyright theft.”

Anticipating a loss in the case, AFACT began lobbying government and ISPs behind closed doors last December. The process has been widely criticised for a lack of public consultation. While the Australian government has suggested it prefers an industry agreed model for combating copyright infringement to legislation, leaks have revealed AFACT and its lobbying partners have been pressuring for an outcome that forces ISPs into a policing role.

The option of having ISPs forced into that role through the courts has been blunted by today’s High Court decision and it can be expected AFACT will step up their lobbying efforts of law-makers directly.

Update: Both parties held separate conferences following the emphatic 5-0 High Court decision. The mood in the iiNet camp, who stand to recoup $6 million in legal fees, was jubilant.

“We’re very pleased with the results announced in the High Court,” iiNet Chief Regulatory Officer Steve Dalby said. “The five-nil judgement puts us in a much stronger position.”

AFACT’s Neil Gane was expectedly downbeat. “Both judgements in this case recognize that copyright law is no longer equipped to deal with the rate of technological change we have seen since the law of authorization was last tested,” he said.

iiNet CEO Michael Malone was keen to stress the importance of the win. “This is a world first case. No case has gone to judgement in the highest court in the land. I’ve had text messages and emails from people from all over the world,” he said.

Mr Malone said he looked forward to finding solutions to content piracy, but said a large part of the problem was content creators’ unwillingness to make their products available in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Expressing a personal fondness for hit US TV series Game of Thrones, Mr Malone lamented he was not able to access the latest episodes of the show legally in Australia.

Both Mr Malone and Mr Dalby expressed concerns about AFACT’s methods for collecting data on alleged infringers. “I dont’ have any confidence in the notices [of alleged infringement] that we’ve seen,” Mr Dalby said.

Mr Malone added that by standing up to AFACT and its Hollywood backers iiNet had enhanced its reputation in the Australian marketplace. “I’d argue [the court case has] positively impacted our reputation … Our role is to connect customers to the internet and with each other. We’re not going to remove your access without some sort of independent review,” he said.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

AFACT wants to hold iiNet responsible for the copyright infringing activities of their users, but they have been unsuccessful thus far.

Interestingly enough, a Wikileaks cable that was just released reveals that the MPAA (thus the American movie studios) are a main facilitator of the legal action.

“The case was filed by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) on behalf of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international affiliate, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), but does not want that fact to be broadcasted,” the summary of the diplomatic cable reads (emphasis added).

“Despite the lead role of AFACT and the inclusion of Australian companies Village Roadshow and the Seven Network, this is an MPAA/American studios production,” then-US Ambassador Robert McCallum writes.

So there we have it.

The landmark case wasn’t really about protecting the interests of Aussie filmmakers.

That was just a side-effect.

The revenues of American companies was what really started this case. But that was supposed to be a secret….

For more in-depth analysis of the cable we recommend Delimiter’s write-up.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Although AFACT is still engaged in legal proceedings against ISP iiNet, having lost the latest round of action in a case now destined for the appeal court, the carefully weighed rhetoric coming from the Hollywood-backed group speaks volumes.

“AFACT has always been open to discussions and negotiations with ISPs,” said an AFACT spokesperson last week on the back of news that it has been ‘inviting’ ISPs to join them in ‘negotiations’ about dealing with online piracy.

“This is simply an invitation to ISPs to engage with us to fulfil their obligations.”

Last week Delimiter reported that the letter sent by AFACT to ISPs highlights points from the most recent hearing in the iiNet case that the movie group feels went in their favor.

It now seems clear that despite losing that round AFACT is moving now – before the appeal – to pressure the ISPs into coming on board. So what do they want? According to The Australian, who have seen a copy of a letter sent to ISP Exetel, they want “a system of graduated responses to online piracy.”

But rather than an approaching talks on a mutually beneficial and friendly footing, AFACT has chosen to do so on the back of threats that are so thinly-veiled the ISPs can be in little doubt about what might be coming next.

The ISPs have until this Wednesday to accept AFACT’s invitation to voluntarily join talks or they will face “unspecified action”.

Exetel boss John Linton said that the wording in the letter could not be seen “as anything other than a threat.”

According to a source quoted by The Australian, AFACT will be relying heavily on statements made during the iiNet case by appeal court judge Arthur Emmett in order to generate leverage against the ISPs.

In a nutshell, Emmett suggested that customers should be warned that an infringement has taken place via their account and they should be given a certain time, say 7 days, to respond to the allegation. If no response should arrive then the ISP could suspend the account until one does. During the iiNet case itself, Judge Emmett suggested going even further for repeat infringers.

“Maybe the stage is reached where it’s reasonable to say, ‘Look, you’ve had warning after warning. Maybe you’re doing other lawful things, but if you insist on doing this unlawful activity, we’re going to close you down’.” No surprise then that Hollywood like Emmett’s style.

In their ongoing attempts to meet AFACT somewhere in the middle, during March this year iiNet came up with proposals for dealing with the issue of infringement, outlined in the diagram below.

“iiNet has developed a model which addresses ISP concerns but one we think remains attractive to all participants, including the sustainable strategy of an impartial referee for the resolution of disputes and the issue of penalties for offenders,” explained iiNet chief Michael Malone at the time. He doesn’t seem to be moving from this stance today.

“The rights holders need to provide cogent and unequivocal evidence, which means a transparent and robust collection process, tested by an independent body, such as the judiciary,” said Malone.

So the question remains – will the ISPs respond to the veiled threats of AFACT and agree to meet, or will they call Hollywood’s bluff and wait for the outcome of the iiNet appeal instead?

One thing is for certain, Exetel boss John Linton says he doesn’t respond to threats and won’t be complying. We should know later this week if others take the same stance.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

After previous unsuccessful attempts at making iiNet responsible for the copyright infringing activities of their users, AFACT is still refusing to give in.

As reported in March, the Hollywood-backed group is taking its case to the High Court, claiming that two of the three judges in the appeal did not apply legal tests correctly.

The Australian reports the appeal may start as soon as September:

“The High Court has confirmed the date as the earliest of two it has set aside to hear the studios argue for special leave to challenge a Federal Appeal Court’s decision in February, which saw Perth-headquartered ISP iiNet narrowly avoid a ruling that it authorised its customers to infringe copyright online.”

“If the hearing doesn’t go ahead on August 12 the court has set aside September 2 as an alternative date.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.