Comment: iiTrial is a little bit of history repeating

 

How copyright owners have always struggled with technology change.

Copyright owners have always been in conflict with new technologies, which are invariably only settled on the open market, rather than the courts, says Australian Digital Alliance copyright adviser, Matt Dawes.

In February, ISP iiNet won a decisive victory against Hollywood movie studios in the Federal Court that reaffirmed the responsibilities of service providers with relation to the actions of their users.

In this case, by only providing internet access iiNet was found not to have authorised the copyright infringement of those who used its service for illegal file sharing.

However, Hollywood seems set to dig in for a long war with an appeal beginning Monday.

The heart of the issue for copyright owners - that new technologies continually challenge their control over the reproduction, distribution and uses of material - is as old as the gramophone.

Typically, copyright owners respond to this loss of control with demands for legal action, supported by claims (sometimes exaggerated) that their business is about to collapse, jeopardising jobs, culture and the economy. These efforts ultimately fail because use of the new technology is already commonplace, such that public opinion works against them.

Historically, each conflict between technologies and copyright owners is settled by the creation of a new business model, which increases public access to copyright material and secures both increased revenue for copyright owners and the future of the technology.

As a case in point, Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America infamously claimed that the VCR posed the same threat to the United States TV industry as the Boston Strangler serial killer posed to women at home alone. During the settlement process, the home video market emerged as the solution, which now represents billions of dollars of revenue.

This pattern has been repeated in relation to the gramophone, radio, television, photocopier, VCR, blank tape, MP3 Player, digital video recorder (like TIVO) and now, the Internet.

Just like the preceding technologies, Hollywood's concern about the Internet and illegal file sharing neglects the Internet as a tremendous commercial opportunity. It is both the most significant and the most efficient means for the distribution of content.

We must acknowledge that this conflict has happened before and draw on that history to provide answers.

We are still in the opening stages of the war between ISPs and Hollywood. It is being waged in domestic theatres such as the Federal Court with iiNet, and international theatres with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The ACTA is a confidential agreement that aims, among other things, to increase the responsibility of ISPs for the conduct of their users.

The question is: for how long will Hollywood allow this conflict to grind on before it decides to reduce online copyright infringement by means other than enforcement?

The underlying issue is the failure of the legitimate market to provide content which satisfies the demand of consumers for movies and TV shows that are accessible when they want them and on the device they want them. The strength of this demand for downloaded or streamed content is evident from the size of the illegitimate market. The settlement step of the historical process is meeting this demand with new business models.

In line with the experiences of history, the debate over online copyright infringement must be refocused on the adoption of new business models that entice people to purchase legitimate content. Australians need a cost effective delivery mechanism that is both accessible, affordable and provides on demand content. Therein lies a lucrative opportunity for Hollywood to take advantage of.

Excessive enforcement will only result in the further evolution of unlawful file sharing methods and behaviours. File sharing technologies may evolve to use encryption which will checkmate all future enforcement efforts, and behaviours may evolve to entrench the practice of illegal file sharing and fuel support for radicals like the Pirate Party of Australia.

The Australian Digital Alliance is funded by universities, libraries, museums and IT companies.


Comment: iiTrial is a little bit of history repeating
"Thank you Matt for your interesting article. AFACT are looking to win concessions, this is a planned attack and will not simply go away until they find a way to profit by going away. IINet is ..."
By Tom Brown
 
 
 
Comments: 8
Res
Jul 30, 2010 8:28 AM
Why do AFACT and Co, feel they are special?

If an ISP is found to have authorised users activities, then imagine the doors that will fly open, ISP's will be held liable for drug deals conducted by email, illegal street races from email or forums... break and enters, car theft rings and so on that use the internet, the list is endless...

Should the police now start to prosecute telco's for these activities being conducted over phones, real estates for renting properties.. I could go on with examples for an hour, but have better things to do with my time.

Times change, it is time the movie industry took note of how the music industry is reaping the benefits from changing with technology, rather than sitting back on their lazy fat @$$'s expecting other people to do their dirty work.
Digger11
Jul 30, 2010 9:27 AM
"Earlier this year in February, ISP iiNet won a decisive victory against Hollywood movie studios in the Federal Court"


ummmm, NO, that is not what happened. A decisive vidtory is when the defendant is found to be innovent beyond any shadow of doubt.
iiNet and their "I fail to recall" testimonies of Malone and Dalby were totally despicable in their behaviour and got off on a mionr techniclaity.
They certainly were not found to be inncoent.
ITrant
Jul 30, 2010 10:53 AM
This is purely business. The law is that ISPs cannot be prosecuted for what their customers do, just as Australia Post can't be prosecuted. Hollywood would like to change that law without going to parliament. This is a business tactic, nothing more.
Matt_ADA
Jul 30, 2010 11:00 AM
Hey Digger11

As old spice guy is busy fighting space pirates, I will reply.

On my reading of the judgment it was a decisive victory, with wins for iiNet on the following points:
*finding of fact by Cowdroy J that Malone and Dalby were credible witnesses
*iiNet did not profit either directly or indirectly from its users infringing activities
*finding on primary infringement that supported iiNet (each person infringes only once when downloading or uploading via BitTorrent)
*finding that iiNet was not liable for authorising its users’ infringement on the grounds that it:
1. provided a general internet service (precondition to infringement) not a file sharing service (means to infringement);
2. had no power to prevent infringement (terminating net access not a relevant power);
3. only had a contractual relationship with its customers to provide net access, no relationship with respect to infringing activities (occurs outside of iiNet’s control in peoples’ homes);
4. terminating net access is not a reasonable step to prevent infringement; and finally
5. did not encourage infringement.
*Cowdroy J then went on to make an obiter finding that if iiNet had been liable for authorisation, it would have had the protection of the safe harbour limitations to liability because:
-AFACT notices were defective (didn’t give iiNet ‘knowledge’ of infringement)
-A finding of infringement must be made by a court, not by AFACT or the ISP on the basis of an allegation
-iiNet had and reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy (albeit not a written one) – only appropriate circumstances to terminate a subscribers account is a finding of infringement by a court – which never occurred

The only points iiNet lost on were alternative arguments (s 112E Copyright Act and s 276 Telco Act). Granted, each point above is on appeal in the Full Federal Court.
Scengy
Jul 30, 2010 11:04 AM
Hi Digger. Still having fun?
"ummmm, NO, that is not what happened"

_That_ is what you want to comment on from the piece? Do you ever wonder why people call you troll?


That's one of the more eloquent, whilst remaining brief, write-ups on the need for distribution models to adapt to new distribution methods rather than trying to suppress or stifle these new methods.

Nice work.
rumaer
Jul 30, 2010 11:36 AM
@Digger
Mate, in your eagerness to froth at the mouth you are becoming confused: this is a Civil case, not criminal - there are no innocent or guilty verdicts..

The normal indicator of a narrow or decisive victory in these cases is usually who pays the costs..

Can you remember who picked up the bill for ALL of this one?
Bazwalt
Jul 30, 2010 7:13 PM
@digger11 - when will you learn just to remain quiet when you don't have all the facts or a solid understanding.

Matt_ADA gave the best and most precise response i've seen yet.
Tom Brown
Jul 31, 2010 11:24 AM
Thank you Matt for your interesting article.

AFACT are looking to win concessions, this is a planned attack and will not simply go away until they find a way to profit by going away.

IINet is not out of the woods, AFACT has much more resources and will continue until there is a decisive ruling that they may not continue contesting the findings.

The judges are also on trial, if one makes an error then AFACT will achieve a win.

Look at how the tobacco industries work, they will loose the case then win the appeal( especially if the plaintiff is dead).

If you are concerned that AFACT will get their hooks into your life then:

You can have an input by letting the legal profession know their feelings on the matter. It is not just this case it is how the future will be perverted by big money dictating what you may do in your own home.

Let you member of parliament know about your concerns.

Be involved in forums and demand community consultation.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Windows 8: Under the hood
Part One of iTnews' enterprise guide to Windows 8.
 
iTnews on tour: The Executive Summit Series
Join us in Sydney and Melbourne to meet Australia's tech leaders.
 
Meet Westpac's new technology leaders
Engineering realigned under CTO.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Was your 2012 IT budget...




   |   View results
Cut by less than ten percent?
  15%
 
Cut by more than ten percent?
  34%
 
Flat
  27%
 
Increased by less than ten percent?
  7%
 
Increased by more than ten percent?
  16%
TOTAL VOTES: 409

Vote
Will you still use DropBox and other cloud storage in the wake of the Megauploads saga?

   |   View results
Yes
  65%
 
No
  35%
TOTAL VOTES: 303

Vote