Telco/ISP

Revealed: iiNet's film copyright defence

"Bittorrent users should proxy their tracker connection through an anonymiser. For example the bittorrent client program has a command line option "--tracker_proxy http://myproxyhost:myproxyport". ..."

By mck

AFACT v iiNet: The judgement in full

Update: iiNet copyright case decision next week

Day 22: Film studios target iiNet business model change

Background: Film industry vs ISP iiNet

Breaking Stories

Microsoft denies Windows 7 battery problems

Ex-Intel executive owns up to insider trading

Optus to boost HFC network up to 100 Mbps

Microsoft launches Surface, unveils partners and customers

Opinion: Webjet brings 'cloud' claims back down to earth

By Ry Crozier

Oct 2, 2009 4:58 PM

First details emerge on how it will argue landmark case.

Next Tuesday, Perth ISP iiNet will throw the spotlight on the film industry, accusing it of being the primary copyright infringer in a Federal Court case to be heard in Sydney.

iiNet provided iTnews fresh details of its defence against Roadshow Films and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft today. It came less than a week after the Federal Court declined to release the federation's responses to iiNet's defence prior to the case being heard.

"The alleged authorisation infringement is, on the applicant's own case, actually brought about by actions of the applicants," iiNet told iTnews it will argue next week, pointing to how the federation gathered evidence against the ISP.

The ISP said it will also argue that wading through every infringement allegation against customers who use peer-to-peer software would put it at commercial disadvantage.

iiNet will further argue that it encouraged only legal downloads over its network by offering a "freezone" of unmetered, legal content.

It did not offer users software that would enable them to infringe copyright or have a relationship with companies that developed such software, the ISP will argue next week.

Commercial disadvantage

iiNet argued it would need "substantial" and costly IT systems to investigate every infringement allegation, disadvantaging it against other ISPs.

This was assuming it was not already contravening the Telecommunications Act in order to investigate the allegations, an interpretation to be tested in court next week.

iiNet said ISPs received "hundreds of allegations of copyright infringement on a large number of IP addresses".

Those addresses identified the device, rather than a user, that is connected to the internet. The ISP said that the user could be "be the partner, child, flat-mate, employee or customer of the account holder" or even a stranger passing an account holder's unsecured wireless network.

These possibilities made the film industry's proposal of an automated system of warnings and disconnections for copyright infringement "inappropriate", iiNet said.

"Varying circumstances applying to each customer would require case-by-case treatment. This would be an enormously time and resource-intensive undertaking," iiNet said.

"If iiNet were to implement a regime of this type, it would lose customers to other ISPs such as Telstra and Optus who not only do not have such regimes but whose customers' activities, apparently, AFACT and the studios have decided to condone by not issuing notifications; or not pursue the alleged authorisation infringements thereby created."

The cost of implementing such systems needed to be considered when determining whether it could be considered a "reasonable step" in preventing copyright infringement, iiNet said.

The case starts in the Federal Court on Tuesday.

Comments: 18

Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.

gobmax Oct 2, 2009 9:01 PM	AFACT and the studios AFACT = dinosaur that no longer lives in our Real/ Reality World, and have heaps of "Money" AND can do what it wants. IINet = providing a service ( that may be Legal/Illegal.) Judge's Court case summary : AFACT- You are so Dead and Living in the Past, all you can rely on is your $$$$$ power. IInet all you can do is keep fighting and hope sanity and Legal sanity prevails. $$$$ Corporate witch hunts, means you have lost the vision and are Corporately no longer viable.
peterh_oz Oct 2, 2009 10:32 PM	They seem to be missing the fact (yes, FACT) that an automated system CAN be implemented, and HAS been implemented at other ISPs. It is completely automated thus the only "running cost" is a few cycles of a CPU to send an email and temporarily block access pending action by the customer (which can be actioned by a mouse click). The freeloaders who continually steal and download only have themselves to blame.
Sams Oct 2, 2009 11:15 PM	"few cycles of a CPU to send an email and temporarily block access pending action by the customer" Yeah I'm sure the customer's wont might being cut off for no good reason. :-/ You might try exercising a few cycles of your own CPU.
Slick Oct 2, 2009 11:25 PM	peterh_oz - my brother is with one of the ISPs who passes on the notices. When he got one, he called them and they told him to ignore it and that they wont do anything about it. So hes now had a few and totally ignored them. So this automated system you claims will work, is absolutely useless.
Prophet Oct 3, 2009 12:23 AM	@peterh_oz You seem to have a selective memory. You seem to be for an automated system, but what happens if it wasn't you? As iiNet state, "The ISP said that the user could be "be the partner, child, flat-mate, employee or customer of the account holder" Are you suggesting that ISPs should become the police? Should an ISP be able cut off a client from the Internet, solely because a movie company said they were pirating a movie? I’m guessing that you haven’t heard of the countless false-positive infringement notices that have dealt here and abroad. If you had the vaguest idea how our legal systems works, you would know that no-one can classify something as illegal, except a Judge. Yet it sounds to me like you’re advocating for independent (and International) bodies to determine if someone breaching Copyright. For example, If I was stealing a DVD from a shop, would the police determine I was guilty and figure out a punishment for me? No, I’d be given a court citation and a Judge would figure out if there was enough evidence to convict me and he/she would give me an appropriate punishment. Why should it be different for downloading a movie? The model you’re suggesting is the equivalent to the shopkeeper (MPAA) reports suspect activity, the police only having evidence of a shopkeepers testimony (who have an extensive history of reporting false-positives) automatically assume I’m guilty and figure out the punishment on the spot (Internet suspension/Termination). Where was the fair trial? Shouldn’t a court gather the evidence and determine if the were in breech of the law, THEN if they were found guilty, the punishment ensues?
ljraggy Oct 3, 2009 12:54 AM	The Most amusing thing i find is Channel 7, Promoted illegal movie/tv/media downloads on Today Tonight. Media Watch Segment youtube.com/watch?v=vL_uNXKJ9XY& I hope iinet state this in defence when one of the AFACT members promoted illegal downloads on Prime Time FTA twice in one week.
flanamacca Oct 3, 2009 7:51 PM	peterh_oz you seem to be missing the fact (yes FACT) that an IP address is not an admission of guilt. Why in fact ( yes FACT AGAIN!) much like driving a car - the speeding ticket goes to the DRIVER of the vehicle - not the owner of the vehicle. So this amazing automated system you have spoken of it is fact (yes FACT!) is nothing more than something you have dreamed up because any ISP which implemented this - and subsequently disconnected a user on such "evidence" would find themselves bent over backwards in the courts.
peterh__oz Oct 3, 2009 9:17 PM	FACT - I am an irnorant nuff nuff who likes to log onto sites to preach in an lofty, self-servient and arrogant manner.
peterh__oz Oct 3, 2009 9:18 PM	edit - ignorant FACT - I also can't spell
Slatts Oct 4, 2009 11:56 AM	There. See? Another one who wants / needs an edit button. Come on, how about it Mr admin? please? Yes, I can see the other side of the picture with abusive posters making a hit and run strike.
LordCas98 Oct 5, 2009 11:58 AM	I have to agree with IINet's position in what they have said in the past (Yes, I am an IINet Naked DSL customer, but that is NOT why I agree with them). They can not legally terminate someone's account/connection just because someone says that that IP address is doing illegal somethings.. That is an allegation, NOT A FACT. AFACT are NOT (a) police, judge and jury, they are "alleging" that someone at IP address x.x.x.x is downloading illegal material. If the allegation is not proven in a court of law, IINet can not terminate the account. Let AFACT take those users to court.. Oh wait a minute, under the privacy laws, they can not get the details of user X at IP address x.x.x.x at any given time.. So, AFACT go after the actual owner of that address instead. They who lease it out. Why don't we all rent cars and hold up petrol stations? Going by AFACT, the car hire company is responsible, not us.. (OBVIOUSLY I do not condone doing that..) IINet may be responsible for what happens on computers within it's organisation, but NOT what happens externally, in the family home environment. As for the post I read saying that AFACT are stating that IINet are "promoting" illegal downloading by offering larger plans with alot more data? Well, I am a Second life citizen and an avid NASA TV watcher. I am on a large plan (40+60). Does the fact that I am on a large plan automatically mean I am downloading illegal content? Not at all.
phoenix Oct 5, 2009 2:41 PM	I have been wondering whether iiNet would use such a defence. If AFACT have engaged the services of a person or persons to attempt to download material from an AFACT associate, then surely the person or persons so engaged are acting as agents of AFACT, and therefore not committing an illegal act. For AFACT to then claim that these individuals are committing an illegal act would constitute false representation and is probably an illegal act in itself. Therefore, AFACT should be prosecuted by the relevant authorities for providing false and misleading information to the ISP.
Rhino Oct 5, 2009 3:25 PM	I was shocked at how many unsecured wireless networks there are around my estate. I even went to my neighbour and advised him I could access his network because it was unsecured. So having said that peterh_oz, what is to stop me from using said unsecured networks to download something, which the poor owner would get an infringment notice, and therefore have their connection terminated all for doing nothing legally wrong. How would you feel if someone hacked your network and downloaded movies or music or whatever and you had your connection terminated? Going by your post you'd be ok with it all.
John Oct 5, 2009 6:23 PM	No one seems to be concerned that the more of these big brother listening/monitoring services we implement, the more tools are available for abuse. Freedom is easy to exchange for security, but it is hard to win that freedom back once it has been given away!
BrettWinterford Oct 5, 2009 8:54 PM	Slatts - working on it! b.
FLashy Oct 6, 2009 8:22 PM	Apart from being a relative Internet novice, isn't it illegal in Australia, to intercept internet connections? How did AFACT monitor Torrent connections, to obtain all these user URLs, did they install remotely spyware on Torrent sites? I am just curious as to how all this detailed information was obtained. Certainly my ISP would be annoyed if I had employed some nefarious means to monitor traffic of it's subscribers. Perhaps AFACT is above the law.
Slatts Oct 6, 2009 10:52 PM	Honey pots FLashy. Or at least I seem to recall hearing that.
mck Oct 7, 2009 7:50 AM	Bittorrent users should proxy their tracker connection through an anonymiser. For example the bittorrent client program has a command line option "--tracker_proxy http://myproxyhost:myproxyport". It's largely the tracker connection that these corrupt multinational corporations will trace you through, and then sue your ISP, resulting in higher internet connection fees no doubt. It's pretty simple to run your own Tor + Privoxy proxy that will largely keep you anonymous, and help internet connection costs down in australia. See http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/internet101/f/anonymous_surf.htm or just google "tor privoxy".