iiNet claims ‘positve outcome’ in Dallas Buyers Club case despite order to hand over data
The company which owns the rights to the movie Dallas Buyers Club has succeeded in its bid to force internet service providers (ISPs) to reveal the identity of customers who illegally downloaded and shared the film.
The watershed ruling on the “preliminary discovery” application, handed down yesterday in Sydney’s Federal Court, is expected to pave the way for other firms to take similar action and sue thousands of people for copyright breaches.
But despite the ruling, commentators have argued the result may not be as clear cut as it seems.
In his written judgement, Justice Nye Perram said ISPs must hand over the names and physical addresses of 4,726 IP addresses identified by Dallas Buyers Club as being allegedly involved in piracy.
But he stressed that any correspondence issued by the company must first be signed off by the court, a condition welcomed by iiNet, one of the six ISPs which contested the application.
The parties will return to court on April 22 for final orders.
Seeking to put a positive spin on proceedings, iiNetm described the verdict as a “positive outcome” that will see “significant safeguards put in place” to protect consumers.
Chief executive David Buckingham said the case highlighted the use of “speculative invoicing”, a practice whereby film studios seek reimbursement and financial damages for illegal downloads.
Such an approach by studios amounts to bullying and threatening behaviour, he said.
“The result is pleasingly what we expected. By going through this process we’ve been able to ensure that our customers will be treated fairy and won’t be subjected to the bullying that we have seen happen elsewhere,” he said, a reference to the approach adopted in the US.
“We’re very happy with Justice Perram’s judgement and his balanced approach to both the studio’s and consumer’s rights’.”
Buckingham added: “Letters issued by the rights holders will be reviewed by the Judge to ensure they are not threatening – providing a significant safeguard for our customers. As a result, the ruling will put a major dent in the process and business case behind speculative invoicing, since the financial returns could be outweighed by the costs of legal action.”
In the judgement, Justice Perram said speculative invoicing, while not illegal in Australia, may amount to “unconscionable conduct” under Australian Consumer Law and described some letters written by the film studios as “very aggressive”.
The order requiring the court to sign off any correspondence from Dallas Buyers Club would prevent such practices, he said.
While forcing iiNet and five other ISPs – Internode, Amnet Broadband, Dodo Services, Adam Internet and Wideband Networks – to hand over the names and addresses of the IP account holders, the ruling did not extend to email addresses.
Justice Perram said in the ruling: “I will order the ISPs to divulge the names and physical addresses of the customers associated in their records with each of the 4,726 IP addresses.
“I will impose upon the applicants a condition that this information only be used for the purposes of recovering compensation for the infringements and is not otherwise to be disclosed without the leave of this Court.
“I will also impose a condition on the applicants that they are to submit to me a draft of any letter they propose to send to account holders associated with the IP addresses which have been identified.”
The ISPs had argued that the evidence put forward by Dallas Buyers Club was insufficient to identify the IP addresses and that the claim against any putative respondent was speculative.
They also claimed there was insufficient evidence to suggest the IP addresses identified belonged to those directly involved in illegal downloading.
Justice Perram disagreed, saying: “I am comfortably satisfied that the downloading of a sliver of the film from a single IP address provides strong circumstantial evidence that the end-user was infringing the copyright in the film.
“It certainly provides enough evidence on a preliminary discovery application. The applicants do not need to establish even a prima facie case of infringement for that purpose.”
He added: “I do not regard as fanciful the proposition that end-users sharing movies on-line using BitTorrent are infringing the copyright in those movies. Indeed, if there is anything fanciful about this, it is the proposition that they are not.”
In its statement, iiNet predicted the ruling is likely to be superseded by an industry code notice scheme being developed by the Communications Alliance in collaboration with rights holders.
“We have worked closely with the Communications Alliance at the request of the federal government, to develop a code to educate people to the alternatives to piracy while protecting the privacy of our customers,” Buckingham said.
He added that iiNet has a “long history of standing up for the rights of their customers” and while not supporting copyright infringement, the company has encouraged the “fair and timely distribution of quality content”.
“We are big advocates of legitimate content being made available to the Australian market at the same time as it’s released in other parts of the world, and for a reasonable price,” Buckingham said. “Our partnerships with Fetch TV and Netflix demonstrate our strong commitment to make this happen.”
Steve Jones
Arrrrr!
‘Tis a landmark case, sure, but I still be pirating on the high seas of torrent!
Raise ‘ye sails lads, the free content of ThePirateBay awaits!!
User ID not verified.
Good luck proving I downloaded it. I must have had the router password off at the time. Those bloody neighbours eh !
User ID not verified.
“I am comfortably satisfied that the downloading of a sliver of the film from a single IP address provides strong circumstantial evidence that the end-user was infringing the copyright in the film.” No it doesn’t. Feel sorry for anyone who has picked up a knife at a murder scene then !
User ID not verified.
Similarly, Wickstrom conceded that the company instructs lawyers to “dismiss” piracy conducted through open networks, because it is “too hard” to find the individual downloader.
“But I will say to the account holders, ‘Do something about your network, put a password on it’,” he said.
Damn my open network !
User ID not verified.
Wonder why only some subsidiaries of iiNet are caught up in this and not for example Westnet.
User ID not verified.
You never have a proper debate about this kind of theft online because online commenters are often the ones doing it. A bit like discussing the merits of rape in the fiddler wing of a prison.
But I see already that the cup of self-righteousness overfloweth.
User ID not verified.
All these people who have time to wait for a movie to download. I prefer to watch movies in a cinema. I don;t care how big your TV is in your McMansion, cinema is the best way to watch a movie. If I like the movie then I will buy the DVD or watch legally on VOD. Not paying to see a movie is theft, Pure an dsimple.
User ID not verified.
……Aye tis true Anonymous!
Arrrr!
User ID not verified.
What you self righteous content thieves don’t realize that if the people who make the films don’t make money on the films, they can’t make films, pay actors, pay crew or sustain a viable Industry.
Selfish people always cry foul when it comes to their own wants – what about the Writers, Directors and Crew who have poured their hard work into creating the great films we watch? They deserve reward for their efforts.
Then along comes some self important twat who thinks it is his right to steal the end result.
How about I come round to your place and steal your car just because I want to.
User ID not verified.
You can only conclude from most of the comments on here so far that smugly pirating posters would be willing to steal the DVD of said film, and presumably any others that take their fancy, from the shelves of a store if given half the chance. What about stealing a painting off a gallery wall? Go on – it’s only art, and maybe not very good art, be it music, films, literature or anything else. But someone has put time and effort into making it and should be able to charge for that time and effort. Oh, I hear these hypocrites say, that’s so last century and it’s not really stealing when you’re only grabbing digital thingamajigs out of the ether.
User ID not verified.
There is a difference between stealing something that is tangible ie. a car or physical artwork, vs downloading/streamling a movie/music. Just because its shared it doesnt mean its being taken from somewhere/someone else . 10 pairs or eyes and eyes on a screen does not mean its disadvantaged 1 pair of eyes/eyes. whereas stealing a car means someone is left without a car.
There are plenty of people who go over each other houses to watch foxtel, or a movie their friend just bought. Its even encouraged for people to get toegther every weekend for sport or for big sporting events to watch things together – so why arent foxtel angry at the fact that people are not paying for their sport subscripton?? The concept is the same thing.
User ID not verified.
who took this to court?
Why is ” the company who holds the rights to Dallas Buyers Club” never identified?
Is it Pinnacle Films, the Australian rights holders ??
User ID not verified.
hi
Can someone please explain why only iinet and some other minor ISPs are involved in this? Why not the big telcos?
thanks!
Nance
User ID not verified.
Let’s get this straight and I’ll use capitals for those of you who are DEAF !!! Downloading a movie is NOT STEALING. If you steal something you permanently deprive the owner of it. What we are talking here is BREACH OF COPYWRIGHT. In such a case whether the owner has lost anything is a legal argument to be had. If I had no intention to share with anyone else and would not have bought the movie or seen it in the cinema then exactly what has been lost by the owner hmmm ?
And for those holier than thou idiots commenting here I wonder if any of you have ever borrowed a book or DVD from a friend ? Did you send on the cost to the book or DVD company or movie studio ? No – but you people somehow think you are so much better than a pirate who is doing the same thing over via the internet instead of in person !!!
User ID not verified.
@ Bob,
You are welcome to come round my place, make an exact copy of my car and drive it away. (or better still stay at your place, make a replica and drive it)
No worries 🙂
User ID not verified.
@”What you self righteous content thieves don’t realize that if the people who make the films don’t make money on the films, they can’t make films, pay actors, pay crew or sustain a viable Industry.”
So what ? They’re all foreign anyway.
User ID not verified.
You wouldn’t steal a car… so watch this before you download a film illegally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPEeaxI0OPU
User ID not verified.
@ Rob
Okay, so when you pirate a movie, or “borrow” it, as you would have us believe, do you “return” it when you’re finished watching it? Seeing that the owner/maker of that movie didn’t want you to pirate it – sorry, “borrow” it to use your terminology – in the first place, you’re stealing it. Naughty Rob. You’re hereby sentenced to 10 years of watching nothing but Australian free-to-air commercial television. That’s harsh. Also, if I borrow, to use the word correctly, a copyrighted tangible object – a book, CD, or DVD – from a friend more often than not it’s likely to have been paid for by someone somewhere along the way, although Rob might have different ideas about paying for such antiquated objects as well. Maybe he’s got a back room loaded with Bob Dylan bootlegs from really ancient times.
User ID not verified.
When I was little I used to put a “cassette” (look it up if you’re under 30) into my “boom box” (again) and press the “play and record” at the same time, on “80 hits in a row” off 2SM. This is NOTHING NEW. So what’d the difference? Same as it always was – when its overpriced and under-delivered, people will always find a better (and not always ethical) way.
User ID not verified.
@Bob & ZumaBeach…
You guys are stuck back in the 90’s. We are simply making copies of what we love as per the boombox example above.
I torrent movies, music and porn and I dont give a flying f**k about what you fun police have to say about it. Also, I’m with iiNet… they can throw as many letters as they want at me, Ill just put them in the trash.
Like that Blackbeard guy says above ‘ahoy mateys’
User ID not verified.
Just go to Bali, 50 cents for the dvd
User ID not verified.