Australian ISPs forced to hand over customer information to Dallas Buyers Club LLC

[markymark]

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/dallas-buyers-club-slays-iinet-in-landmark-piracy-case-20150407-1mey38.html

 

In a landmark judgment delivered on Tuesday afternoon, Justice Nye Perram ruled in favour of Dallas Buyers Club LLC's "preliminary discovery" application requesting that the ISPs disclose the identities of people it alleges shared the movie online.

 

In addition to iiNet, ISPs Dodo, Internode, Amnet Broadband, Adam Internet and Wideband Networks will also be required to hand over customer details.

 

The ruling means about 4700 Australian internet account holders whose service was used to share Dallas Buyers Club on the internet from as early as May 2013 are soon likely to receive legal letters from Dallas Buyers Club LLC's Australian lawyers threatening legal action unless large sums of money are paid for breach of copyright.

 

iiNet has 28 days in which to appeal. This is a very unfavorable decision for Australians and others worldwide as other countries will be looking at this ruling as well. I'm interested to see how it all shakes out, but it will obviously do massive damage to piracy in Australia. The impact of this ruling and precedent may not be seen for a little while yet though. 

[slightlyjaded]

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/dallas-buyers-club-slays-iinet-in-landmark-piracy-case-20150407-1mey38.html

 

 

iiNet has 28 days in which to appeal. This is a very unfavorable decision for Australians and others worldwide as other countries will be looking at this ruling as well. I'm interested to see how it all shakes out, but it will obviously do massive damage to piracy in Australia. The impact of this ruling and precedent may not be seen for a little while yet though. 

Doesn't hold water. If they shared the movie before the rule was passed. You cannot backdate laws, no matter how much hollywood might cry foul.

 

while I wouldn't recommend they do this, iinet could legitimately report that they did not record customer metadata during the time period specified, as they were not at the time required to do so.

[Sidiox]

Wow what. This is a weird ruling. Imagine every creator of original content doing this... This might result in a lot of court cases. I hope the rest of the world doesn't follow.

[Me1z]

Well, this is particularly sucky. Glad I have no intention of ever living in Australia, that would be downright unfortunate. And what a way to go down, if you were going to get caught pirating at least make it something good like Game of Thrones, I've never even heard of "Dallas Buyers Club".

[Hoppa]

I wonder what they'll define as 'sharing', uploading 1mb of the movie is 'technically' sharing.

[SImoHayha]

Jesus welcome to Australia, were nearly half of the wildlife will and might kill you, and bullshit lawmakers which screw everyone over, whom has internet.  Jeez may as well call Australia, hell hole island. Not due to the people of course just because they suffer from nearly everything over there, the sun, the law, the internet and the wildlife. 

[slightlyjaded]

Jesus welcome to Australia, were nearly half of the wildlife will and might kill you, and bullshit lawmakers which screw everyone over, whom has internet.  Jeez may as well call Australia, hell hole island. Not due to the people of course just because they suffer from nearly everything over there, the sun, the law, the internet and the wildlife. 

Oh, and you forgot koala bears...stoned little F'ers will rip your face off if you look at them funny.

[Sidiox]

Also how does this work if I have a tor relay that relayed some of the data that is part of the movie. Or if I download 1kb of the movie via a public hotspot? Technically then the company providing that hotspot should get an notice. And if that is not enough data then at what point is it enough?

[mr moose]

Doesn't hold water. If they shared the movie before the rule was passed. You cannot backdate laws, no matter how much hollywood might cry foul.

 

while I wouldn't recommend they do this, iinet could legitimately report that they did not record customer metadata during the time period specified, as they were not at the time required to do so.

It's always been illegal to share movies in Australia, there is nothing to backdate.   If iinet et al had been able to just delete what they had then they probably would have.  I'd say they didn't under legal advice and to fight it in court.  It is possible that had they deleted any data while a complaint was pending then regardless of the latest data laws they would have been found guilty of tampering with evidence.

[decer304]

Dont worry guys, it's all for our protection  <_<

 

On a serious note, this is getting ridiculous. How far are they going to go with this. 

[slightlyjaded]

It's always been illegal to share movies in Australia, there is nothing to backdate.   If iinet et al had been able to just delete what they had then they probably would have.  I'd say they didn't under legal advice and to fight it in court.  It is possible that had they deleted any data while a complaint was pending then regardless of the latest data laws they would have been found guilty of tampering with evidence.

Pretty sure it's only recently they have been required to hand over the data to any tom, dick or harry with a bought, and paid for court order. however. Before they were only required to hand it over to the police service, or ASIO.

 

As i said. I wouldn't advise it (for the same reasons you listed) However if the meta data wasn't there it would then require another court order (and an expensive rebuilding process) to see when it was overwritten.

[slightlyjaded]

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/dallas-buyers-club-slays-iinet-in-landmark-piracy-case-20150407-1mey38.html

 

I think this is the article he's quoting from.

[mr moose]

Pretty sure it's only recently they have been required to hand over the data to any tom, dick or harry with a bought, and paid for court order. however. Before they were only required to hand it over to the police service, or ASIO.

 

As i said. I wouldn't advise it (for the same reasons you listed) However if the meta data wasn't there it would then require another court order (and an expensive rebuilding process) to see when it was overwritten.

 

It's only been recently that they past a law forcing ISPs to retain meta data for two years. However that law has nothing to do with this case.  The ISPs have the data, the lawyers know it and as it is crucial to a legal case it is against the law for the ISP to delete it.  It comes under the crimes act 1914 destroying evidence.

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s39.html

[slightlyjaded]

It's only been recently that they past a law forcing ISPs to retain meta data for two years. However that law has nothing to do with this case.  The ISPs have the data, the lawyers know it and as it is crucial to a legal case it is against the law for the ISP to delete it.  It comes under the crimes act 1914 destroying evidence.

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s39.html

lol, not arguing with you moose. It's always amusing when the lawyer, and the slightly greyer citizen meet.

 

There is always a case to be made for this is the law. There is always a case however for this is what you can prove. While I don't argue that these ISP's probably have metadata for you stored from 2 years ago. It (until recently) was seen as redundant data, and would have, (unless there was a company wide directive) been recycled at times. If any ISP wanted to play on the grey side of the law to protect it's customers. They could lose this data, and the tell dallas buyers club LLC to prove it.... Yes this data could be reclaimed, and the overwrite time and date could be pulled from the metadata. But rebuilding an entire database of 2 years worth of data to find these files is not going to be quick. It's not going to be easy, and most important of all in a case that makes patent trolls look like nice upstanding citizens, it's not going to be cheap.

[PerfectTemplar]

Doesn't hold water. If they shared the movie before the rule was passed. You cannot backdate laws, no matter how much hollywood might cry foul.

 

while I wouldn't recommend they do this, iinet could legitimately report that they did not record customer metadata during the time period specified, as they were not at the time required to do so.

You don't have much understanding of Australian common law do you? This sets a precedent for all future cases where movie studios have the right to immediately demand customer information of those who pirate. Also, this is not statue law. The law isn't passed, it is just set and the offenders brought forward in the case (the 4700 users) will have to pay whatever fine they send their way or risk being taken to court themselves.

[mr moose]

lol, not arguing with you moose. It's always amusing when the lawyer, and the slightly greyer citizen meet.

 

There is always a case to be made for this is the law. There is always a case however for this is what you can prove. While I don't argue that these ISP's probably have metadata for you stored from 2 years ago. It (until recently) was seen as redundant data, and would have, (unless there was a company wide directive) been recycled at times. If any ISP wanted to play on the grey side of the law to protect it's customers. They could lose this data, and the tell dallas buyers club LLC to prove it.... Yes this data could be reclaimed, and the overwrite time and date could be pulled from the metadata. But rebuilding an entire database of 2 years worth of data to find these files is not going to be quick. It's not going to be easy, and most important of all in a case that makes patent trolls look like nice upstanding citizens, it's not going to be cheap.

 

redundant or not, once  the dallas buyers club took legal action it became illegal for the isp's to delete that data.  If they did they would be guilty of interfering with evidence.

 

The dallas buyers club do not have to rebuild anything, all they have to do is prove that the isps deleted the data (which is easy) and presto the ISPs are guilty of crimes in Australia.  That is why they have not deleted the files and that is why this court case has got as far as it has.

[mr moose]

You don't have much understanding of Australian common law do you? This sets a precedent for all future cases where movie studios have the right to immediately demand customer information of those who pirate.

 

what scares me the most is that without a set law that determines the punishment for piracy in Australia, this precedent actually allows the movie industry to determine the punishment and the alleged perpetrator can only defend himself in court.   Which is not fair if the alleged is actually innocent, imagine the loss of money, time and stress endured defending yourself against a big movie company? 

[Geldar]

im 99% sure iinet et al will appeal the decision, they have always done it in the past.

[Simons]

Well, this is particularly sucky. Glad I have no intention of ever living in Australia, that would be downright unfortunate. And what a way to go down, if you were going to get caught pirating at least make it something good like Game of Thrones, I've never even heard of "Dallas Buyers Club".

 

Its a very borring movie, yes I have watched it, and yes downloaded it. It was without a doubt a movie, I would not even given a try in the cinemax or even my hard earned money.

[slightlyjaded]

You don't have much understanding of Australian common law do you? This sets a precedent for all future cases where movie studios have the right to immediately demand customer information of those who pirate. Also, this is not statue law. The law isn't passed, it is just set and the offenders brought forward in the case (the 4700 users) will have to pay whatever fine they send their way or risk being taken to court themselves.

 

 

redundant or not, once  the dallas buyers club took legal action it became illegal for the isp's to delete that data.  If they did they would be guilty of interfering with evidence.

 

The dallas buyers club do not have to rebuild anything, all they have to do is prove that the isps deleted the data (which is easy) and presto the ISPs are guilty of crimes in Australia.  That is why they have not deleted the files and that is why this court case has got as far as it has.

 

 

what scares me the most is that without a set law that determines the punishment for piracy in Australia, this precedent actually allows the movie industry to determine the punishment and the alleged perpetrator can only defend himself in court.   Which is not fair if the alleged is actually innocent, imagine the loss of money, time and stress endured defending yourself against a big movie company? 

You're right. there is a law that covers this. I'm not sure if it's already been passed, or it's on it's way. Moose can probably find, and quote this, but basically it boils down to.

 

If three separate claims are made against the same IP address, the ISP is required to turn over all data pertaining to the account.

 

Pretty sure this is strike 1.

If I'm wrong about my timing and it's still being passed, and this case set's precedent it's going to be mighty embarrassing for more than a few politicians trying to get this passed.

[mr moose]

You're right. there is a law that covers this. I'm not sure if it's already been passed, or it's on it's way. Moose can probably find, and quote this, but basically it boils down to.

 

If three separate claims are made against the same IP address, the ISP is required to turn over all data pertaining to the account.

 

Pretty sure this is strike 1.

If I'm wrong about my timing and it's still being passed, and this case set's precedent it's going to be mighty embarrassing for more than a few politicians trying to get this passed.

 

I see the issue, I think.

 

There have been two news items relating to this of late.  One was a proposal from an independent consortium that represents ISPs and the movie industry, this consisted of a three strike policy. Strike 1 = warning, strike 2 = warning and something else (can't remember) then strike three = details being sent to the movie industry for further legal action and a $25 fine.  This is just a proposal that has been opened to the public for comment before being sent to the government to be made law in November.  As of right now it does not mean anything. it is not a law nor does it have any legal ramifications for any past or present law suits. 

 

The other new issue is the meta data laws that where actually passed into law just recently.  What these essentially do is force ISPs to retain meta data for two years.  Given that ISPs are already retaining that data it makes little difference to the end consumer.

 

The two are separate issues/laws and neither have any bearing on the current lawsuit against iinet et al.  In this case the law that will bring the consumers unstuck is the criminal evidence law of 1914.  Now that the court has ruled iinet have 28 days to either lodge an appeal or cough up the customer information.  If they don't then they may as well have deleted all the meta data because they will be in contempt of court.

[slightlyjaded]

My apologies, got it wrong.

[ofr057]

those american lawyer's can just fuck off, we dont need those american lawyers making it toxic in australia

[mr moose]

those american lawyer's can just fuck off, we dont need those american lawyers making it toxic in australia

unfortunately they employed Australian lawyers,  I really wish they had got this one though:

 

 

[ofr057]

unfortunately they employed Australian lawyers,  I really wish they had got this one though:

 

At least thats one good thing.