If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?

from the depends-on-who-you-talk-to dept

We've mentioned the ongoing lawsuit against ISP iiNet in Australia a few times. Basically, the movie studios are pissed off at iiNet because it didn't do much in response to letters that were sent concerning IP addresses of those that the studios believed were sharing unauthorized works. As iiNet noted, however, it didn't see why it was involved in any of this:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

The trial has been going on recently, and while I haven't been following the details that closely (figure it's worth waiting for the verdict), there was one interesting tidbit. As the company had suggested earlier, it's arguing that sharing a file via BitTorrent is arguably not copyright infringement at all. That's because of the way BitTorrent works, in breaking up any file into tiny components and sharing the individual pieces. A key element of copyright law is looking at how much of the content is shared. Down in Australia, they have a "fair dealing" exception to copyright law that appears to allow for copying small portions of a work, and some precedent of short video clips not being considered infringing.

While I would be quite surprised if this argument worked (even if it may be technically correct, it's so rare that judges pay attention to the technical aspects when it comes to copyright), I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen this argued elsewhere as well. Of course, if it does actually work, it will only turn the focus back towards the question of whether or not "making available" violates the distribution right of copyright, since that would cover what BitTorrent users were doing, if they offered up any unauthorized content (even if they actually shared only a tiny fraction).

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian Patent Lawyers Claim Patenting Genes Is Necessary For Biomedical Research

from the patenting-nature dept

Here in the US, there's an important legal battle going on over whether or not you can patent genes. Not surprisingly, we're very much against such a system, which gives a total monopoly to certain companies on doing certain types of genetic testing. It also makes no sense at all, as patents are supposed to be about promoting invention -- not finding something in nature that others can also find. Down in Australia, however, there's a similar debate going on, but in the legislative branch, rather than the judicial. Reader sinsi alerts us to the news of a recent panel discussion in Australia where a bunch of patent attorneys predicted the virtual collapse of the biotech industry in Australia if firms weren't able to patent genes.

This is, of course, ridiculous. First of all, much of the research on these things is often done via government and university funding -- and it's often done for reasons other than locking up a monopoly on the technique. Reasons such as helping people live better lives (*gasp* -- what a concept!). Or, more to the point, it's done so that firms can sell an actual product. If they have to compete in the marketplace, that's a good thing, as it pushes them to be more efficient and offer a better overall service, rather than just jacking up prices. And how do they offer a better overall service? Oh yeah, often by continuing to do more research and creating new breakthroughs.

These sorts of claims of industries collapsing are moral panics and folk devils put forth by patent attorneys who are really afraid that it's going to hurt their own business. There's simply no evidence at all that it harms the overall biomedical profession if they can't patent the finding of naturally occurring genes.

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Massively Increasing Music Licensing Fees For Clubs Down Under Massively Backfires

from the finding-non-covered-music dept

We've noted the ridiculous and self-defeating efforts by many music collections societies around the world to jack up their rates by ridiculous amounts. None was more ridiculous than the attempt in Australia by the PPCA where some of the rate changes would rocket up from figures like $125/year... to $19,344/year. Well, it looks like it's already backfiring badly. Reader Dan alerts us to the news that the organization that represents night clubs and similar businesses in Australia, appropriately named Clubs Australia, has set up a system whereby the organization will specifically go out and seek music by artists not covered by the collections effort, and distribute that music to clubs and other establishments. Then, these clubs, gyms, restaurants and the like can tell the PPCA to take a hike, and still play music. We'd already seen that some clubs had started doing this on their own, but now they've teamed up to share such music with each other in order to get out from under the PPCA entirely. So, nice job PPCA. Once again, in your effort to get people to pay more for every single use, you end up making it that much more difficult for anyone to actually hear -- or care about -- the musicians you supposedly represent.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian Radio Program On 'Piracy' What 60 Minutes Should Have Done

from the you-mean-actually-have-facts? dept

On Monday, we wrote about that that ridiculous attempt by 60 Minutes to do a story about movie piracy that was basically one long press release for the MPAA's position. Facts weren't checked, and the reporter, Leslie Stahl, didn't bother to push back on a single claim made by any of the (all industry insider) guests. However, Boing Boing points us to a "radio documentary" on piracy that was done on Australian radio the very same day as the 60 Minutes episode aired. You may notice a major difference in that the Australian radio folks actually looked at the facts, invited on people who could refute industry claims, and actually pushed back on claims by the industry:

Adrianne Pecotic (from anti-piracy group AFACT): The fact that there is a level of illegitimate consumption of film and television is something that detracts from the revenue that could go back into the industry and could go back into supporting local video stores, local cinemas and online distribution. Theft is not justified because someone is being successful, and that's a really important point in this debate.

Oscar McLaren (radio host): But it does seem strange that I mean, we're told in quite apocalyptic terms often that the video industry and the film industry is really starting to hurt. I don't imagine many people would actually be aware that the revenues are in fact going up quite steadily and have been for the past decade or so.

Adrianne Pecotic: I think the important thing about the losses that are being suffered by the film industry through piracy, is that individual investors in individual films rely on that investment in that particular film, for that film maker, or that investor as their entire revenue. If you're looking at the analysis across the board of the whole industry and whether it is going up or whether more people are consuming films or less people are consuming films, you're not asking the question of whether a particular film has had the opportunity to recoup its proper revenue.

Oscar McLaren: For the record, box office sales were also at all-time high levels last year, reaching nearly $1-billion.

The program also pushed back against the repeated claim that a download is no different than shoplifting:

Oscar McLaren: But many lawyers in the debate argue that stealing a physical object is very different to breaching intellectual property laws....

Jessica Litman: The difference between a song and a cookie is if I eat a cookie, then you can't have it because I've eaten it, it's gone. But if I listen to a song, you can listen to a song, your friend can listen to a song, anyone can listen to a song, and because intellectual property is capable of being enjoyed by many people at the same time, it's subject to somewhat different rules than cookies. Or houses, or other kinds of property.

The report goes in-depth in other areas as well, including a discussion on fair use/fair dealing, the history of copyright (and how it's often been abused in the name of artists, when it really had nothing to do with them) and the importance of mashup/remix culture. It's the sort of report that a program like 60 Minutes could have -- and should have -- done, but did not. Kudos to ABC radio down in Australia.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

CSIRO Taxes Innovators To Fund Innovators?

from the how's-that-work-now? dept

A few years back, the Australian tech research agency CSIRO was awarded a patent with several claims over basic concepts used in WiFi. While we have tremendous problems with the idea of any government agency patenting anything, CSIRO wielded this patent and aggressively fought against a bunch of large tech companies, and it recently convinced them to pay a $200 million settlement. At some point, tech firms realize it's often just cheaper to pay up than to keep fighting a bogus patent claim.

So now it's interesting to see CSIRO claim that it's taking $150 million of the $200 million and investing it in innovation (found via Slashdot). So... basically, it sued the companies that actually innovated (brought working products to market) and got them to cough up money that CSIRO is going to invest in innovation? Why not just leave the original innovators with their money to keep innovating?

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian Court Says Tweeting From Court Can Be A Good Thing

from the smart-courts-down-under dept

We've written a few times about the legal battle in Australia between ISP iiNet and anti-piracy group AFACT. The actual trial's been going on -- and we haven't written much about the day-to-day, figuring we'll wait until there's a verdict. However, Jason sent over an interesting side note. Some had noticed that there was a flurry of Twitter reporting from the courtroom, as various reporters have been using Twitter to get real-time info out about the trial. Apparently, the fact that some had called attention to this scared off The Australian, who told its reporter to stop Tweeting from the courtroom, wondering if it might get them in trouble.

Not so much, apparently. When asked about it, the court basically said it was fine. While it admitted that it hadn't really put too much thought into potential downsides, on the whole, it viewed portable technology as a good way to quickly inform the public:

The practice is relatively new and -- as such -- the court has not had the opportunity to consider any possible adverse implications. It is entirely at the discretion of individual judges how they conduct matters in their court room. We would, of course, be concerned if any device was used that disrupted proceedings.

Nevertheless, on what we know so far, the use of twitter does not seem to have caused any problems and maybe a useful way of informing the public very quickly about what is happening in a court room. The court itself -- through its e-services strategy -- supports the use of portable technology. New portable devices provide a range of functions -- in addition to being a phone -- and are increasingly used by many in the ordinary course of business because they are so efficient.

It's nice to see a court not freak out about such things, but recognize that they're increasingly common and often quite useful.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian Clubs Looking To Play Independent Music To Avoid Insane New Royalties

from the send-them-some-indie-music dept

We've been discussing how collections societies around the globe have been making a mad dash to get governments to tax more things or to simply massively expand existing collection taxes on music. One stunning example we gave was how the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) was pushing to increase fees by ridiculous amounts (in one example from $125/year to $19,344). Apparently, part of the setup is that clubs and restaurants have to pay a much higher per patron fee, and the number of patrons is based not on the actual number of patrons -- but on capacity. PPCA and others like them continue to insist that all of the value in a restaurant or club comes from the music, and thus those places should pay these extortionate rates, even if actual human beings don't come to fill up the place (so much for the music actually bringing in the crowds). But it looks like at least some clubs in Australia are pushing back. Sambo points us to the news that many are trying to build support for a protest effort where these clubs will only play independent music and avoid all music licensed to the PPCA. Of course, in the US, we've seen ASCAP and BMI tell clubs that do similar things that it doesn't matter -- since they might accidentally play their music. Still, it looks like these kinds of moves, that often would bankrupt these clubs and restaurants, are having an unintended consequence of helping to promote non-PPCA music. So, if you're a musician and you want to get heard in Australia, try licensing your songs under a Creative Commons license or something and highlight that anyone can play the music without having to pay a ridiculous PPCA tax.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian ABC Promises To Stay Free; Mocks Murdoch And Paywalls As 'Old Empire' Thinking

from the take-that,-rupert dept

One of the key points we've raised in the past about the futility of newspapers putting up paywalls is that doing so would only open up a huge opportunity for other, smarter journalism organizations to take their market share by remaining free. And, indeed, more and more organizations are starting to point out that's exactly what they would do. Reader Jamie writes in to let us know about a speech by the managing director of ABC in Australia (not the Disney owned ABC in America), Mark Scott, taking on the "old media" thinking around such things as paywalls:

Scott's most virulent words were saved for News Corporation (owner of The Australian) chairman Rupert Murdoch and CEO Europe and Asia, James Murdoch.

He called Rupert Murdoch's recent call for content providers to charge online distributors for content as "a classic play of old empire, of empire in decline. Believing that because you once controlled the world you can continue to do so."

"When you have been so powerful and dominant for so long, it is hard to believe that empire is slipping away," he said.

Scott argued traditional media companies had been out-thought by technology companies in strategy.

And... oh yeah, if Murdoch goes paywall, Scott promises to do the opposite:

He reiterated the ABC would continue to provide free online news content and said the ABC must remain audience-focused

Not just that, but he seems to be recognizing that the way people interact with news has changed, and they want to be much more involved:

... he noted the only media organisations to survive will be those that: know and accept that all the rules have changed; are endlessly inquisitive about the new; empower their audiences to contribute, to create and share media....

Nice to see some news business execs who seem to recognize what's happening.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Do Morons In A Hurry Shop For iPhones At Woolworths Down Under?

from the confusion-time dept

Ah, the glorious trademark dispute. Apparently Apple is quite upset at Woolworths, the Australia and New Zealand supermarket chain (apparently not connected to the now defunct chain in the US, though that is where the name came from), because the Woolworths down under has decided to use a logo with a stylized W made to sorta, kinda, maybe if you squint and shake your head rapidly look like Apple's apple logo, but not really:

Honestly, I have no idea how anyone can claim the two logos are similar in a way that might lead to even the slightest bit of confusion. The claim from Apple is that its concern is that Woolworths wants the mark to potentially include electronics and technology, should it decide to sell those. But, even so, no one would confuse these two. No one would think that there's any likelihood of one endorsing the other even slightly.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Prison Guards Suing For The Right To Bitch About Their Bosses In Private Online Forums

from the unfair-discipline dept

A group of five prison guards in Australia wanted to bitch about their boss... and did so in a private group on Facebook. Yet, somehow, their superiors found out about it and accused them of misconduct and threatened to have the guards fired. In response, the guards are suing, and saying they should have a right to speak their mind on a private message board like that. As a union official notes: "It's more like people getting together in a pub and having a beer and bagging the boss because the boss wants to privatize their jobs." Indeed. Though, it seems like these sorts of things are becoming more common. As the entire work/life dividing line continues to blur, expect many more such situations, where things that were previously considered safely on the "life" side of the line, suddenly find themselves thrust into the "work" side.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Anonymity Online Under Attack: China And Australia

from the anonymity-rights? dept

For the most part, the US has recognized that the right to be anonymous is a form of protected free speech -- and yet, anonymity is constantly under attack. Of course, the right to be anonymous is not absolute, but there is value in allowing anonymous speech to occur. With the right to anonymity under attack in the US, it's even worse in other countries, where such rights aren't even seen as vital as it is in the US. China, for example, is now requiring news websites to force all commenters to reveal their real identity. Apparently, the government issued a directive demanding such info from all commenters, though, they don't want to admit it. Even though the newspapers are claiming that they're doing it to increase "civility" and "social responsibility," quietly they admit that it's the government. As for why the gov't won't just come out and say it's for civility and social responsibility (even if it's to quiet critics), apparently the government is afraid of public backlash:

"The influence of public opinion on the Net is still too big."

I guess that's why the idea is to silence them.

Meanwhile, as reports came in last week suggesting that Australia's latest plan to censor the internet is just about dead, Slashdot notes that Scientologists down under are asking the Australian gov't to implement severe restrictions on what they refer to as "Religious Vilification" (which, one assumes, means any anti-Scientology comments, among other things). The proposal also suggests that any such site should not be allowed to be operated anonymously. Apparently, Scientologists took the name of the group "Anonymous" that organized protests against the group quite literally.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

iiNet Says Complying With Anti-Piracy Complaints Would Violate Telecom Laws

from the privacy-anyone? dept

We've been following the lawsuit down in Australia, where AFACT, the local entertainment industry "anti-piracy" group, has sued ISP iiNet, complaining that the ISP refused to do anything when it would send over infringement notices. From the beginning, iiNet's response has been clear:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

AFACT continues to insist that iiNet should be responsible for becoming copyright cops themselves, and had won an early battle, forcing iiNet to hand over "sample" records of users. However, Big Al points us to the latest news, where iiNet is claiming that not complying with AFACT's usual demands (it is handing over the sample data after working out the details) isn't just an issue of iiNet not wanting to be AFACT's enforcer, but that it violates Australia's telecom act, and could be a serious breach of privacy laws:

"Under the Act, it is illegal for iiNet to use customers' personal information in the manner demanded by AFACT without a court order or warrant. Breaches of the privacy provisions of the Act can attract a two-year gaol sentence."

Separately, iiNet noted:

"To examine customer communications on the basis of a third party's allegations would be a criminal act for us to engage in."

"Our starting position on this would be there is good public policy reasons for why Australia Post should not be opening your letters. And good reasons for why carriers should not be listening to your phone calls or looking at what you download. Our view is that would constitute a criminal offence."

It should come as no surprise that AFACT isn't buying this, calling it a "very novel" argument and one it hadn't seen before, and claiming that IP address information is not the sort of information that's meant to be included under the telco act, since it's not really "confidential." This case just gets more and more fun to watch (though, if I had to guess, iiNet's arguments probably won't prevail).

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australia Explores Whether Genes Should Be Patentable

from the patenting-human-life dept

Via Glyn Moody we found out that Australia is discussing whether or not gene patents should be allowed. As you may recall, such patents have been allowed in the US for years, but are finally about to be tested in court for the first time. Over in Australia, rather than letting the courts figure it out, it looks like politicians are haggling over the question -- which is scary enough, since that often leads to whichever lobbyists have spent the most money. Hopefully common sense prevails (I know, I know, it's not so common), and the idea that you can patent a building block of human life is simply laughed out as ridiculous.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Internet Filter Blocked Educational Sites, But Left Open Porn

from the reverse-filters dept

The Australian gov't has been pushing for widespread internet filters for a while, but perhaps they should take a look at some of the smaller scale tests being done in the country. Someone who prefers to remain anonymous, alerted me to the news that filters installed for high school students by the NSW education department were found to block educational sites, while letting porn flow through. Of course, with any filter there's going to be some Type I and Type II errors, so this shouldn't be a surprise. But, for some reason, there are many people who seem to think that filters must work, when they really tend to just give a false sense of security - people think that if filters are in place, they no longer need to worry.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian Police Start Wardriving; Telling You To Lock Up Your WiFi

from the but-what-if-I-want-it-open? dept

I honestly had to double check the date on this story, because it sounds like something we heard seven years ago about the US Secret Service doing wardriving and alerting open WiFi router owners that their WiFi was open. That was back when there were all sorts of stories about how "evil" it was to have open WiFi, which seems to have finally (thankfully) gone away for the most part. However, Broadband Reports points us to the news that police in Australia are going to start "wardriving" and seeking open WiFi networks in order to knock on your door and tell you to lock them down. They don't seem to note that having an open WiFi network is legal if you want it to be open. Perhaps it's a nice thing to do to alert people who might not know, but it seems like police resources could be spent in a more useful manner.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Filmmaker Sues Websites After Commenters Cost Him A Job

from the misdirected dept

Over the years, we've been threatened with lawsuits a few too many times -- almost always due to something that someone said in our comments. The pace of those threats has certainly increased over the years, but most are nothing more than angry bluster. In the few cases where it appears to be someone serious, we have our lawyers explain to them Section 230 in rather plain language, noting that suing us for something said by others in our forums will (1) get thrown out of court incredibly quickly and (2) probably only serve to bring a lot more attention to the comments they're so pissed off about. To date, this has always worked quite well.

Of course, other countries don't have Section 230 safe harbors, and so you get a lot more ridiculous lawsuits with someone blaming a forum owner for what people say in that forum. Hopefully, common sense prevails in those cases too... but you never know. A bunch of folks have sent in the story of a lawsuit in Australia where a filmmaker is suing some online forums for comments in those forums that the filmmaker believes cost him a job. Apparently, some folks agreed to a deal with him to produce a certain movie, but after finding those comments, they pulled out of the deal.

First of all, the filmmaker, Greg Smith, appears to be suing the wrong parties. Rather than those who actually made the comments, he's suing the owners of the web forums where the comments occurred. And, on top of that, he never contacted those forum owners about the comments in the first place (at least one says that the first he knew about the complaints was when the lawsuit was filed -- at which point he immediately removed the comments anyway). And, of course, all this has really served to do is call a lot more attention to the comments about Smith (and the way he handles such things).

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian Press Prints Movie Industry Myths About Piracy Funding Terrorism

from the does-skepticism-exist-down-under? dept

Isn't the press supposed to actually investigate claims handed to them by industry lobbyists? Apparently not. A bunch of folks have sent in the fact that the Sydney Morning Herald has published a totally one-side and unsubstantiated article claiming that "movie pirates fund terrorism." There are just a few problems with this -- including the fact that the so-called evidence for this is weak or non-existent, and the only evidence that is provided comes directly from the movie industry itself, who has every incentive to push this ridiculous story, despite the fact that the movie business continues to have record breaking years at the box office, and attendance is way up this year so far -- despite a massive worldwide recession.

None of that makes it into this article, by two supposedly professional reporters.

Instead, we're told that "piracy" costs the Australian movie industry $233 million per year and "affects at least 50,000 workers." Affects how? That we're not told. As for the $233 million number, that comes from AFACT -- the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, hardly an unbiased party, though the gullible reporters seem to take its spokesperson's words as gospel that cannot be questioned. About the only thing that said spokesperson, Neil Gane, can show as someone being impacted is that "the people who own the local DVD shop who are having to lay off staff." Uh huh. And the people who own the local CD shop are doing so also -- but it's not because of "piracy" but because of competition. You know who's staffing up, though? Apple stores and video game retailers... Hmmm... Why is it that AFACT doesn't count their job growth in its numbers? I wonder...

Then there's the claim from the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance's director, Simon Whipp, claiming that all this piracy is impacting the least well paid people in the industry: "We're talking about a group of people who earn an average wage of about $15,000 a year." Honestly, all I can think is that (1) why is the industry paying people such crappy wages and (2) they're probably a lot better off in other jobs then, where they might earn a bit more. I don't see that as a problem of piracy. It seems like the movie studios aren't paying those employees enough to keep them in their jobs.

From there, the article moves on to the absolutely ridiculous, promising to "show how movie piracy is being used to fund terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Jemaah Islamiah, responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002." That would, indeed, be quite interesting, but the article fails to even come close. Instead, it talks about a guy in Sydney who camcorded some films and uploaded them to one of many online groups. What the article doesn't mention is that the same films were almost certainly uploaded by numerous other people, and there's a good chance that most of those films pretty quickly had official (non-camcorded) versions leaked online by industry insiders. But, wait, we're supposed to be learning how this one guy's movies are connected to terrorists.

But, we don't. Instead, we find out that the movies he recorded (but no mention as to whether it's specifically his recordings) showed up in Britain, the United States, Mexico, Spain, Malaysia and the Philippines. We're told that the movies are manufactured and sold in the streets. That's great, but it ignores the fact that, thanks to all this "online movie piracy" the whole "counterfeit DVD" business has been going downhill. In fact, if you must connect the sale of counterfeit DVDs to terrorists, then you should be happy for online piracy taking away that market.

Is any of this suggested in the article? Of course not.

But wait, weren't we supposed to be finding the elusive missing link between movie downloading and terrorism? We were following the camcorded movie recorded by the one guy in Sydney, which showed up in other places... but there the trail ends cold. Instead, we're told to just trust the experts. Ganes (quoted earlier) shows up again to claim: "It has been recognised by governments... that there is a link between movie piracy and terrorist funding." Oh really? It has been recognized by whom? Only by a study funded by the MPAA which didn't really talk about online piracy, but about counterfeiting, and which had numerous methodological problems. At least the article admits that the study was funded by the MPAA, but never considers that it may be biased because of this.

The article quotes the authors of the study, claiming: "If you buy pirated DVDs, there is a good chance that at least part of the money will go to organised crime." Of course, organized crime is not the same as terrorists, but does the article mention that? Nope. It wants you to assume they're the same thing. It also doesn't discuss the declining sales of counterfeit DVDs.

But it does jump back to the Philippines, where local actor Eduardo Manzano has the definitive proof of the link to terrorists. It's because he says so! "In this country, we have the triad, and we have terrorist organisations which are being suspected now of using profits derived from DVDs for possible terrorist activities." Then, in dramatic fashion, the reporters discuss a raid on counterfeit DVDs, and from there we're told that the guy who camcorded movies in Sydney didn't get a big enough sentence.

Got it? With some gullible reporters, a lack of fact checking, questionable information, a lack of context, a total dearth of anyone who might question the bogus information put forth in the article, we have an article promising to show the link between piracy and terrorism that does nothing of the sort. Now who's out there complaining again about how these professional reporters need to have special protection since they actually do real investigative reporting?

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Orders iiNet To Hand Over Sample Records Of Customers

from the privacy? dept

iiNet is the Australian ISP that has been standing up for its customers' rights against the entertainment industry which is suing the ISP for not magically stopping copyright infringement. iiNet's argument, from the very beginning, has been that if the entertainment industry believes that iiNet customers are breaking the law, then they should sue those customers. It shouldn't be iiNet's responsibility to act as the industry's police:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

iiNet has also raised questions about whether or not a user making use of BitTorrent is technically violating copyright, especially since they may only be sharing a tiny fragment of a file based on the way BitTorrent works.

Either way, a court has now ordered iiNet to hand over a small sampling of customer data requested by the anti-piracy group AFACT, which AFACT claims will show infringing activities on the part of iiNet subscribers. Of course, it would be no surprise at all that a group of folks hand picked by the industry can be shown to be infringing. The real legal question is whether or not (a) there's enough evidence to prove who was actually infringing and (b) more importantly, why this is iiNet's responsibility.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Playing Music In A Nightclub Just Got Ridiculously More Expensive In Australia

from the and-that's-just-the-start dept

We've pointed out in the past how ridiculous it is to have "collections societies" for music, which basically act as big bureaucracies for taxing any kind of music usage. These societies -- both the for-profit and non-profit ones -- have pretty much one goal and one goal only: to increase how much money they get. So when you hear about new schemes, like Choruss, to set up a new such collection society, you know it's just a blatant money grab, rather than allowing for real business models to be developed. We've seen this all over the world, with SoundExchange in the US sitting on millions of dollars it collected, PRS in the UK trying to charge a stable for horses listening to the radio or calling up small businesses and threatening them if they hear music in the background.

The latest -- sent in by a bunch of you -- is that the various collections societies in Australia are looking for massive increases in what they can collect. Apparently, the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia is gleeful after the Australian Copyright Tribunal allowed somewhat insane increases to yearly fees. The new fees will almost certainly put some nightclubs out of business while making sure some restaurants no longer play any music at all:

Buoyed by the nightclub ruling, the PPCA is now targeting eateries. It wants to increase licensing fees in a 120-seat restaurant to $19,344 a year -- up from $125. Small cafes would be slugged with a 4729 per cent yearly increase from $124 to $5860.

Just look at those numbers for a second. And then try not to laugh as the PPCA defends the numbers by claiming "we are looking to establish a fair return."

Meanwhile, that may not be all. Thanks to this ruling, the Australasian Performing Right Association, which collects a separate fee for composers and artists, is asking for its own massive increase in fees.

All this really does is highlight another ridiculous aspect to collections societies: their rates aren't set by the market or any effort to become more efficient/offer a better product. Instead, the rates are set by various copyright boards, courts or tribunals who get pushed heavily by industry interests for such increases. Even so, while we've seen crazy numbers from around the world, I've never seen percentage increases like those being discussed in Australia. It's as if the collections societies there don't want anyone ever playing music again.

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Music Publisher Suddenly Claims 80s Australian Pop Hit Infringed On 1930s Kids Tune

from the i-come-from-a-kookaburra-down-under dept

Mick was the first of a few folks who sent in this story about how an Australian music publishing firm, Larrikin Music, is suddenly accusing the Australian band, Men At Work, of "ripping off" a 1930s popular Austrlian children's song, "Kookaburra" with their hit song "Down Under." Why did it take so long? Well, Larrikin only gained the copyright in 2000, but that's still 9 years of nothing. Apparently, they only noticed the similarities when an Australian quiz show brought it up -- which certainly raises questions about any "harm" done by this (if there was any actual copying). Once again, like similar stories (such as the Coldplay/Satriani/Creaky Boards/Cat Stevens battle), it's difficult to see why this even matters. Even if the songs are similar, it's not as if one makes the other any less valuable. If anything, it's only served to drive more attention to the similar songs. This is nothing more than a music publishing company desperate for cash grasping at straws to demand cash from others who have been more successful.

Anyway, for comparison's sake, here's a group of kids singing Kookaburra:

And here's the song Down Under: Can anyone tell the difference?

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..