TorrentFreak Email Update

“Ignorant” Movie Boss & “Lying” ISP Fight Publicly Over Piracy

Posted: 19 Jun 2014 02:24 AM PDT

It’s definitely not breaking news that the Australian piracy debate has reached unprecedented levels of activity. While the government proposes tough new measures such as “three strikes”, Game of Thrones download records are throwing fuel on an already raging fire.

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.

Dallas Buyers Club Demands Thousands of Dollars from BitTorrent Pirates

Posted: 18 Jun 2014 11:00 AM PDT

Over the past several years hundreds of thousands of Internet subscribers have been sued in the United States for allegedly sharing copyrighted material, mostly films, online.

This year the people behind the Oscar-winning movie Dallas Buyers Club joined the game. Thus far the filmmakers have filed 66 lawsuits across the United States, targeting more than a thousand alleged downloaders.

In common with all other mass-BitTorrent lawsuits the end game is not a full trial, but the revelation of the alleged downloaders’ identities so they can be encouraged to settle. To accomplish this the movie studio asks courts to grant subpoenas ordering associated ISPs to give up their customers' details.

Several courts have complied and recently the first settlement letters arrived in the mailboxes of account holders whose Internet connections were used to share the film.

Interestingly, not all alleged downloaders are treated the same. A settlement letter sent to a Texan Internet subscriber offers a complete settlement for $3,500, while an Ohioan in the same position was asked to pay $5,000.

The second offer was also presented in a more intimidating form, with a threat to raise the amount to $7,000 if the recipient doesn’t pay in time.

Pay or else…

While $5,000 may sound high for sharing a single movie, the letter says that this is a reasonable request and that various courts have issued much higher damages awards in the past.

“Considering the large expense it incurs to enforce its rights, and further that some cases have awarded as much as $22,500 per infringed work, Dallas Buyers Club, LLC feels that asking for Five Thousand Dollars ($5000.00) to settle is very reasonable,” the letter reads.

One of the most often heard comments is that the person who pays for Internet access is not necessarily the infringer in these cases. The movie studio realizes this, but adds that this person is indeed responsible, an argument various courts have refuted in the past.

“Dallas Buyers Club, LLC has absolutely no interest or desire in making an innocent person pay; but it does have clear evidence to establish that your internet account was used to copy and distribute the file. Therefore, if it was not you, then it was someone that (sic) you gave the right to use your account,” the letter reads.

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC does offer letter recipients a chance to move out of the firing line if they reveal in a sworn affidavit who the real pirate is, but it’s unlikely that many subscribers will take up this offer.

Finally, the filmmakers address the “copyright troll” label handed to them by some news outlets. The company states that this label doesn’t apply, as they haven’t bought the copyrights just to sue alleged downloaders.

“No. We are not what many refer to as ‘copyright trolls’,” the letter explains, adding that their right to protect their copyrights are ignored and belittled by some Internet critics.

“Many internet blogs commenting on this and related cases ignore the rights of copyright owners to sue for infringement, and inappropriately belittle efforts of copyright owners to seek injunctions and damages,” they write.

These efforts to distance themselves from the troll label and critics seems a bit misplaced. Based on a very narrow definition of copyright troll they may have a point. But as DTD points out, by addressing the issue in their letter they only direct people to look into the phenomenon, which in settlement terms may result in the opposite of what they want to achieve.

Nevertheless, a large percentage of the people who receive a settlement letter are expected to pay up. With over a thousand defendants thus far the potential income from these lawsuits runs into the millions of dollars.

And as the dollars continue to roll in, it will be rinse and repeat for as long as the copyright protection efforts are profitable.

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