Telco/ISP

Day Three: iiNet lawyers link film studios to BitTorrent

10 comments in this discussion

"LMAO @ pc2099 - Do you know what alleged means?"

By C_2009

iiNet lawyers pan film industry figures

Day 16: iiNet authorised infringing acts, says film industry

Day Four: Film industry claims BitTorrent contracts terminated

Day 17: Film industry attacks iiNet witness selection

Breaking Stories

Australian Government websites blitzed by DDoS attack

Vividwireless reveals five-city expansion plans

Microsoft denies Windows 7 battery problems

Ex-Intel executive owns up to insider trading

Optus to boost HFC network up to 100 Mbps

By Ry Crozier

Oct 8, 2009 2:48 PM

"Contractual relationships" stay confidential.

Several film studios listed as applicants in the copyright case against ISP iiNet had "contractual relationships" with BitTorrent, counsel for iiNet alleged in court today.

The studios, including 20th Century Fox, Paramount and Warner Bros, had their logos on the BitTorrent.com site, located directly under the 'free download' button for the BitTorrent client.

"A number of major studios who are key applicants in this case have a contractual relationship with BitTorrent," general counsel for iiNet Richard Cobden alleged.

"The agreements I'm told [are] confidential."

Cobden tendered to the court iiNet's version of the process that an ordinary internet user would undertake to get a copy of the BitTorrent client, and then to use it to search for one of the 86 copyrighted works listed in the case.

Users visiting the BitTorrent.com website and clicking to download the software client would see a box directly below the ‘download' button containing logos for a number of major film studios.

Once the user had downloaded the client, BitTorrent thanked and directed them to "search the web for stuff to download.

"Nowhere, despite BitTorrent being in a contractual relationship with these key studios, does the site say ‘By the way, try not to download anything owned by Paramount, Warner or Fox," counsel alleged.

"On the website of a partner of Paramount... nothing says please be careful, don't infringe on the rights of Paramount."

Counsel alleged that links to a torrent for Cloverfield, a film owned by Paramount, was visible "only two screens away from the Paramount logo [on the BitTorrent.com website]".

The links led to Torrent sites including Torrentz and Mininova. No warning was given to users not to use their BitTorrent client to download copyright material from the sites.

Cobden alleged the film industry was "engaged wholeheartedly in the promotion of BitTorrent, the accused vehicle of all the infringements in this case."

In contrast, iiNet had no relationship with BitTorrent, Mininova or any torrent site, Cobden alleged.

"It's important to make clear that iiNet did not develop BitTorrent. IiNet doesn't update... distribute... [or] endorse BitTorrent," he alleged.

"iiNet says that BitTorrent can be misused and indeed internal documents warn people [staff] about that."

The case continues. You can follow the case in-full here. For a background on the case, click here.

Comments: 10

Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.

jack Oct 8, 2009 3:53 PM	aaaaaaaahahahahahha
Sams Oct 8, 2009 4:05 PM	Oh this is superb.
Jahm Mitt Oct 8, 2009 4:10 PM	Ahhhh you shouldn't be picking on RFUKT, I mean Walt Dizzy - the feeder of evil junk food munching garbage to fat kids and fat adults has rigged the copy right from 35 years to 120 years...... So much for the Fee Trade Agreements, that the studios RIGGED.
jezza333 Oct 8, 2009 5:18 PM	It's good to see this being used in court - it has needed to be said for a long time [the creator of BitTorrent was sued, and made a confidential partnership/deal with the film companies. If anything, the film companies need to be sued by the actual movie directors and actors themselves. The RIAA/MPAA/AFACT can go die in a hole.
venrix Oct 8, 2009 5:33 PM	Now that is just fantastic. I wonder if there will be any other golden nuggets like this uncovered over the course of the trial?
Digger11 Oct 8, 2009 6:05 PM	I was up skiing at Thredbo last weekend and there was no sign on the huge poles that hold up the lifts saying "do not cut down with a chainsaw". Having no sign is a real weak excuse for illegal bittorent use.
Sams Oct 8, 2009 7:53 PM	@Digger11 : just like your analogy is really weak? I think the correct analogy is that park rangers have left out chainsaws with sign saying "please take one", and the local government has put their stamp of approval on them, only to later sue people for using them.
Simon900 Oct 9, 2009 8:52 AM	@Digger11 - Didn't you fully support the studios on a related article yesterday and completely bag out iiNet? "or a 3rd possiblity - someone who was at a competing Telco and new exactly what iiNet were up to with their devious little marketing plan" Are you changing sides as more information comes out of this case? Or just making general comment? Sounds like fence sitting.
pc2099 Oct 9, 2009 9:53 AM	LMAO @ Digger11 - keep em coming, your IQ drops with every post, much like your credibility. Run along now little boy, back to the ski fields with mummy and daddy. Back on topic though this is HUGE – iinet should take the next step and throw it back at the studios and AFACT saying given they are financially linked to the offending program in question, why is it that they have not implemented a user/pass login system with bittorrent which would allow them to shut down illegal downloader’s themselves? How in any way should this be the responsibility of ISP’s? “Oh whats that Mr movie studios? You don’t want to be able to shut down bittorrent users as they will just switch to a different brand of P2P meaning you will lose out on whatever sinister plan you have cooking at the moment with Bittorrent?” Man the hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breath...
C_2009 Oct 9, 2009 12:32 PM	LMAO @ pc2099 - Do you know what alleged means?