Foxtel confirms it is ‘assessing’ options to launch first cases under anti-piracy laws
Foxtel is considering launching the first legal action under recently passed piracy laws, the pay TV company has confirmed.
Bosses at Foxtel are seeking legal advice on how best to bring about the case under Australia’s new site-blocking legislation, which was passed by The Senate back in June, but have not put any time frame on how long the process could take.
The case could be aimed at websites like Pirate Bay which allow people to access content such as Game of Thrones, which Foxtel holds the exclusive Australian rights to, and block them from being accessed in Australia.
A Foxtel spokesperson told Mumbrella: “The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill does nothing more than give copyright holders similar rights in relation to foreign websites which steal their content to those they would have if the sites were based in Australia.
“Because these pirate sites do not exist in Australia, rights holders are not able to take direct legal action against them. Similar laws exists in Europe, the UK, Singapore and many other jurisdictions.
“Foxtel and other rights holders are currently assessing what action can and should be taken to give effect to the legislation.”
There has been surprise at the lack of action so far, given companies such as Cordell Jigsaw Zapruder said they would be “lining up at the front doors of the court” when the laws were passed.
A successful application would force ISPs such as Telstra, Optus and iiNet to comply with the order by disabling access to the banned IP address.
ASTRA chief executive Andrew Maiden said in June that he hoped piracy traffic could halve under the new laws, although voiced concerns over a VPN loophole.
A report in July commissioned by the Department of Communications showed 43 per cent of Australians surveyed admitted downloading at least one illegal form of content.
Kevin Bradford
The rights holders’ emissaries campaigned on the basis that the site blocking law was an urgent necessity. If that’s so, you’d think they’d have a raft of cases ready to go. Methinks we might just be caught up in a global anti-piracy campaign despite being a very small part of the problem in actual dollar terms. The real issue in this country is that geo-blocking has been used for decades to price gouge hapless consumers.
User ID not verified.
launch proxies in 3… 2..
hurry up and start blocking so the proxies become useful
User ID not verified.
Foxtel would be better off by placing an App on Apple TV and the forthcoming Telstra Roku box as a month by month contract where the consumer could choose their own
content package in either SD or HD for those who have the bandwidth rather than waste time,money and energy going to court.
User ID not verified.
First good thing Foxtel has done in some time
User ID not verified.
Ultimately this whole fiasco boils down to two simple concepts.
1. Foxtel is not providing a value product/service.
2. Consumers have other options.
This is the fundamental reason Foxtel finds themselves in this position. Instead of putting consumers first and revisiting their package and pricing structure, Foxtel choose to stamp their feet and demand relevance. Average Joe doesn’t care about Foxtel’s right deals, he only cares about the value of the product/service. Foxtel needs to come to him, not the other way around.
User ID not verified.
Great summary. Australia strikes again at Internet Freedom by allowing those in power to use the law as a tool.
Would have been good to have explained what the VPN loophole was for completeness by changing it into a link.
http://www.howtogeek.com/16741.....filtering/
Or should that be blocked as well because it’s facilitating piracy? Guilty before proven innocent.
User ID not verified.
You’d think given Foxtel now offer Internet services they would block these illegal sites themselves. They don’t. There’s nothing stopping them from doing so except perhaps it’s not good for their own bottom line offering a crippled Internet service…. I’m amazed the media hasn’t covered this double standard. I’m certain the courts would find it interesting too.
User ID not verified.
Do those options include providing a better service and not jamming shows full of as many ads as possible?
I wonder whether they’ll offer a brand sponsorship to the lawsuit… Imagine the integration.
User ID not verified.