Dallas Buyers Club war with iiNet downloaders finally comes to an end

IT WAS a landmark case in the war between content rights holders and Australian pirates, but it’s finally over and, in a way, the illegal downloaders have won.

The Hollywood studio behind the legal challenge to obtain the identities of more than 4700 iiNet customers who illegally shared the film Dallas Buyers Club will officially accept defeat today.

DBC LLC, the company which owns the rights to the film, is also known for its global effort to identify individuals who downloaded the film illegally and pursue financial compensation from them by threatening heavy legal action.

The tactic proved successful in other jurisdictions, but the company’s efforts to do so in Australia were beset by a number of difficulties, and in the end it was unable to convince an Australian judge of the fairness of its demands.

Link

Well it looks like the DBC LLC won the initial battle, but downloders won the war. The judge should have foreseen that the film studio would attempt to engage in speculative invoicing if given the chance, and should never have allowed the case to go as far as it did. Nevertheless, while I do NOT condone the illegal downloading of copyright material, I feel as if justice has prevailed in this case.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The judge should have foreseen that the film studio would attempt to engage in speculative invoicing if given the chance, and should never have allowed the case to go as far as it did

It not up to the judge to "foresee whether they or not they would engage in speculative invoicing". Not having read the judgement It looks like he would have found in favour of the plaintiffs if the amounts claimed were reasonable?

See below news source.

www.smh.com.au...

The demands they wanted to make were excessive, unsupported by the evidence they collected," Mr Phillips said.

Mr Phillips praised the ISPs for defending their customers' privacy, singling out iiNet's outspoken former chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby for leading the charge.

"The case is a great legacy for Steve Dalby ... who was keen to protect his customers from DBC's unfair speculative invoicing practice," Mr Phillips said.

Rights holders could succeed where Dallas Buyers Club had failed in obtaining details of alleged pirates, if they were able to prove in court their claims for damages would be reasonable and within the law, he said.

Now this sounds like a fair judge....

Justice Perram rejected "several versions" of the studio's proposed correspondence with individuals before deciding in August to lift the stay but impose strict conditions on access. These included that the studio only seek damages from individuals for the cost of obtaining the film plus some out-of-pocket expenses, and that it forfeit a $600,000 bond if the terms were breached. The restrictions effectively made any further action from the studio against individual pirates prohibitively expensive.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

IT WAS a landmark case in the war between content rights holders and Australian pirates, but it’s finally over and, in a way, the illegal downloaders have won.

The Hollywood studio behind the legal challenge to obtain the identities of more than 4700 iiNet customers who illegally shared the film Dallas Buyers Club will officially accept defeat today.

DBC LLC, the company which owns the rights to the film, is also known for its global effort to identify individuals who downloaded the film illegally and pursue financial compensation from them by threatening heavy legal action.

The tactic proved successful in other jurisdictions, but the company’s efforts to do so in Australia were beset by a number of difficulties, and in the end it was unable to convince an Australian judge of the fairness of its demands.

Link

Well it looks like the DBC LLC won the initial battle, but downloders won the war. The judge should have foreseen that the film studio would attempt to engage in speculative invoicing if given the chance, and should never have allowed the case to go as far as it did. Nevertheless, while I do NOT condone the illegal downloading of copyright material, I feel as if justice has prevailed in this case.

Copyright laws are stupid, if I make a machine that is a literal replicator off of startrek, I can only own the rights to it for 7 years, then anyone can make it and undercut me.

But if I write a story about making it, I own it for life, then my estate owns it for 50 years after my death.

That is retarded.

What was more useful, the machine or the story about the machine?

If they don't want folks to DL their movie, then keep it out of the digital realm.

All is fare in love war and internet downloading.