A still from Dallas Buyer's Club, which was illegally downloaded by thousands of Australians. Source: Dallas Buyers Club LLC.

The Federal Court has handed down a crushing ruling to iiNet and several other Australian internet service providers, forcing them to hand over details of customers who have allegedly downloaded the Dallas Buyers Club film illegally via BitTorrent.

In a landmark day for piracy in Australia Federal Court Justice Nye Perram today ordered several providers, including iiNet, to disclose the identities of users which Dallas Buyers Club LLC says downloaded and then shared the film online.

The watershed ruling, handed down this afternoon in Sydney’s Federal Court, is expected to leave the way clear for other firms to take similar action and sue thousands of people for copyright breaches.

iiNet is not the only ISP affected by the ruling. Australian ISPs Dodo, Internode, Amnet Broadband, Adam Internet and Wideband Networks will also be required to hand over customer details.

“I will order the ISPs to divulge the names and physical addresses of the customers associated in their records with each of the 4,726 IP addresses,” Justice Perram said in court in Sydney today.

“I will impose upon the applicants a condition that this information only be used for the purposes of recovering compensation for the infringements and is not otherwise to be disclosed without the leave of this Court.

“I will also impose a condition on the applicants that they are to submit to me a draft of any letter they propose to send to account holders associated with the IP addresses which have been identified.”

Dallas Buyers Club LLC had argued against the need to gain prior court approval of its letters.

Today's ruling means about 4700 Australian internet account holders, who have each been deemed to have 'shared' the film and therefore infringed copyright, will likely soon receive legal letters from Dallas Buyers Club LLC, threatening legal action unless compensation is paid.

iiNet had attempted to challenge the request arguing that if successful it would leave to speculative invoicing, in which anyone alleged to have infringed on copyright are sent letters of demand before any copyright has actually been proven.

"We are concerned that our customers will be unfairly targeted to settle any claims out of court using [this] practice," iiNet said in blog post last year.

Justice Perram said in his judgement that speculative invoicing was not necessarily legal in Australia.

"Whether speculative invoicing is a lawful practice in Australia is not necessarily an easy matter to assess," Perram said.

"Representing to a consumer that they have a liability which they do not may well be misleading and deceptive conduct within the meaning of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and it may be equally misleading to represent to someone that their potential liability is much higher than it could ever realistically be. There may also be something to be said for the idea that speculative invoicing might be a species of unconscionable conduct within one or other of s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law or s 12CB of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).

"In the former, however, it would be necessary to identify a supply of goods or services which may be difficult. In the latter, it would be necessary to identify a financial service which may also not be without difficulty."

iiNet has also been ordered to pay the cost of the applications.

The BitTorrent protocol ­allows users to share files over the internet in a process of communal uploads and downloads of many small parts of a larger file. The system means no one individual is responsible for uploading and downloading ­illegally pirated content.

Acting on behalf of Dallas Buyers Club, Ian Pike SC had previously said it was “the first case of its kind in Australia”, but that the case was “not dealing with an isolated matter”.

Pointing to a growing amount of case law in the US pursuing BitTorrent pirates, Mr Pike said the issue would affect “every other motion picture to be released”.

DBC used German-based company Maverikeye UG to identify the IP addresses it claims have been illegally downloading the film since mid-2013 - even before its release at the cinema.

Intellectual Property expert and associate professor at the ANU College of Law Matthew Rimmer said Dallas Buyers Club LLC had deliberately chosen to pursue iiNet rather than bigger players like Telstra and Optus, though the exact reason behind this was unclear.

"There's a lot of speculation around the choice of defendants," he told Technology Spectator.

"Dallas Buyers Club has been shown on Foxtel, and there are some connections between Foxtel and Telstra, for example. So Telstra has always been a bit different from other ISPs, but I'm not so sure about Optus. iiNet has been targeted for some time now, including against Village Roadshow, and there's some debate around whether iiNet will be such a hardy defender of its customers in the future, given the debate around its future ownership.

"To me iiNet have been a lot more quiet of late, when previously they've been very vocal. There's interesting choices there, if you're just concerned about going after the ISPs with the most money you'd go to Telstra and Optus, but it seems they've focused on some of their rivals.

"Telstra in particular has ties to copyright owners in a number of ways. It's hard to tell what's really going on, but it's indeed striking that iiNet has been targeted again."

Associate Professor Rimmer also said the case was part of a global litigation strategy at play from copyright holders; the film's distributor Voltage Pictures has also chased copyright infringers in the United States and Europe. He also expected there to be concerns now around whether letters will be sent to people who obviously hadn't downloaded the film.

"Just how accurate is the dragnet?," he said.

"We don't really know at this stage. Historically, in the United States the record industry really faltered when it chased online downloaders, there were some egregious misidentification cases where people were wrongly targeted. It may be the same here."

The decision today comes one day before internet service providers, through the Communications Alliance, are due to submit a draft copyright infringement code to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for approval.

Communications minister Malcolm Turnbull also introduced a bill last month that would allow copyright holders to apply for court orders forcing ISPs to block torrent websites like the Pirate Bay.

As Technology Spectator reported last month the bill would allow rights holders to seek a Federal Court order requiring ISPs to block overseas piracy websites by taking "reasonable steps to disable access,” effectively making them inaccessible to Australian users.

For the order to be successful the court must determine the site or "online location" must be outside Australia, it must be seen that it "infringes, or facilitates an infringement of, the copyright" and that must be the "primary purpose" of the site.

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull introduced the bill, revealing it would cost telcos an estimated $130,825 a year to implement.

“Existing copyright law is not adequate to deter a specific type of infringing activity, which is the facilitation of the online infringement of copyright owners’ content ... by online operators,” Mr Turnbull said in the lower house.

“There are a number of foreign-based online locations that disseminate large amounts of infringing content to Australian internet users.”

Read the full judgement here.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/iinet-loses-dallas-buyers-club-landmark-piracy-case/story-e6frg90f-1227294508657

This is why you always protect your torrents and general online behaviour. Luddite judges who don't understand technology aren't going to protect you from outlandish lawsuits like this.

people who think something that ought be consumed for free is going to be commercially beneficial for content producers.

How big can these fines get?

I'm that bloke who pays for stuff (Y)

- Why only the certain ISPs and not others like Telstra or Optus?

With the advance of Video On Demand and globally acceptable pricing availability, most media consumers are the blokes (and blokettes) that pay for stuff now.

Yep. I'm loving these On Demand systems. I never really got into downloading, and have only ever streamed 2 series, so to have stuff like SBS on demand, ABC Iview, Netflix and Quickflix is pretty sweet. Someone mentioned to me that CH7 now have something as well?

I think all the FTA channels have online catch-up VOD services. Ten has an Xbox app, not sure about the others.

SBS has a PS4 app and its average at best.

Yeah, their xbox app isn't too flash either.

iview is far superior, imo.

Literally the only time I ever watch FTA these days is if I'm watching ABC24 when I'm having breakfast or sit down while my daughter is watching ABC4kids or the occasional Friday night A-League on SBS.

- Why only the certain ISPs and not others like Telstra or Optus?

-PB

COME @ ME SHAUN THE SHEEP.

-PB

The million dollar question.

And how are the to be judged as reasonable?

-PB

"Letters issued by the rights holders will be reviewed by the Judge to ensure they are not threatening - providing a significant safeguard for our customers. As a result, the ruling will put a major dent in the process and business case behind speculative invoicing, since the financial returns could be outweighed by the costs of legal action." Justice Perram supported this view with his comment, "It may well be that for single instances of infringement the damages are likely to be modest and quite possibly limited to the forgone licence fee that would have been paid, had the film been lawfully downloaded".
http://www.iinet.net.au/about/mediacentre/releases/2015-04-07-iinet-fights-for-customers-rights-v-dallas-buyers-club.html

I find it staggering people who think something that ought be consumed for free is going to be commercially beneficial for content producers. Have you consumed how utterly asinine that line of thinking is? That the best way to raise revenue is to impose no cost? I can't wait till Ferrari starts giving away their cars for free, their customer base would increase by 1,000,000% overnight.

COME @ ME SHAUN THE SHEEP.

-PB

So this is what you get when you let MetaData Laws through, well done Australia, you feel asleep on this one, and didn’t stand up for your Civil Rights and Privacy.

Lol. While the Metadata laws suck they have nothing to do with this case.

It's all related.

Except making comparisons between high class cars and downloading a $20 movie is just as asinine.

Think of it similar to music. A band today practically gives their music away for you to use for your own entertainment. You love it so much that you become a follower of them.

They come to your home town and you pay to see them live
They release merchandise and you pay to wear it
They release "bootleg" or "sample" copies of their CD's and you pay to download it
They release it on vinyl and you pay to hear it as it was naturally recorded
They cross-promote other bands and side projects that you may enjoy

Netflix has done a fantastic job in charging us not a lot for access to unlimited television. But it's not the movie or the TV show we are buying, it's the Netflix brand. Make the consumer love your company by giving away the content they needed to hook them in and they will be your bitch forever.

As for this story, there is so much Napster to this. Hopefully it just sees more ways of sharing files like music and movies without having to spend half your wage to consume it

music band

Great movie though.

Kinda fitting that it's about a citizen smuggling a product into a country where it was available but too expensive.

:lol:

This dispels notors dud theory that content that is cheap and accessible (ie Netflix) will defeat internet piracy.

Cheap at a cinema in Australia? lol.

I just had a look at my local cinemas website, if I took my wife and kid to see FnF tomorrow in the middle of the day it would cost me just under $60 before going anywhere near the confection stand.

Rusty's strawman (as usual) example does nothing to dispel an already proven strategy to minimise media copyright infringement.

Edited by notorganic: 9/4/2015 12:10:37 AM

Fast and furious 7 (which is by the way a terrible movie) has so far been illegally downloaded over 2.59 million times, despite only being in the cinemas for a few days. This dispels notors dud theory that content that is cheap and accessible (ie Netflix) will defeat internet piracy. Of course people don't really believe such nonsense these are just the silly things people think up to rationalise their illegal downloading and externalise blame onto content providers.

Fast and furious 7 (which is by the way a terrible movie) has so far been illegally downloaded over 2.59 million times, despite only being in the cinemas for a few days. This dispels notors dud theory that content that is cheap and accessible (ie Netflix) will defeat internet piracy. Of course people don't really believe such nonsense these are just the silly things people think up to rationalise their illegal downloading and externalise blame onto content providers.

At Southbank in Brisbane you get your ticket, large drink an popcorn combo for $15. Unreal value compared to other places.

Fast and Furious 7 has already grossed over $400 million. Would dispel your dud theory that the poor movie companies need protecting.

Yeah, nah.

I would rather wait for the blu ray release than watch a low bit rate cam source.

Cheap at a cinema in Australia? lol.

I just had a look at my local cinemas website, if I took my wife and kid to see FnF tomorrow in the middle of the day it would cost me just under $60 before going anywhere near the confection stand.

Rusty's strawman (as usual) example does nothing to dispel an already proven strategy to minimise media copyright infringement.

Edited by notorganic: 9/4/2015 12:10:37 AM

Sure it might somewhat reduce illegal downloads, but despite content being made cheap and accessible (i.e. Netflix) illegal download will continue to occur in large volumes. Your argument that cheap accessible content will bring an end to the piracy industry is plain wrong.

Definitely related to meta data laws

One of the main reasons they were introduced. Terrorism was just to get you to agree to them.

...And if you think this is a Liberal or Labor thing then think again...

You're both guilty of this breach of civil liberty muppets

Saying the same thing over and over like it's a fact does not make it a fact.

The huge uptake of Netflix alone (iinet were crediting Netflix for 15% of their total bandwidth a week after Netflix Australia launched) is proof in itself that people will pay for content when it is a) affordable and b) easily accessible.

It is a proven strategy that you continue to wilfully ignore. https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130723/12235723906/two-new-reports-confirm-best-way-to-reduce-piracy-dramatically-is-to-offer-good-legal-alternatives.shtml

A lot of people purchased Netflix without really understanding how shit it is.
I lived in the UK a few years ago, and we had Netflix. The content is huge, and you'll never run out of things to watch, but that doesn't necessarily make it any good. OITNB and HoC are really the only "top shelf" programming they gave. I know a few people, who I admit are dim (mostly due to being 'older') who thought it would give them access to any TV show, because thats how its portrayed in the media.

I agree that we are simply going to see an upturn in the use of VPNs now.

IPVanish even just put an 'Australia Sale' on, cheeky bastards.

Anyone recommend a VOD website with the best new release movie library?

Searching netflix and they have fuck all.

Anyone recommend a VOD website with the best new release movie library?

Searching netflix and they have fuck all.

Thanks.

netflix is cheap but its rubbish. I'm only really into movies rather than TV shows.

Saying the same thing over and over like it's a fact does not make it a fact.

The huge uptake of Netflix alone (iinet were crediting Netflix for 15% of their total bandwidth a week after Netflix Australia launched) is proof in itself that people will pay for content when it is a) affordable and b) easily accessible.

It is a proven strategy that you continue to wilfully ignore. https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130723/12235723906/two-new-reports-confirm-best-way-to-reduce-piracy-dramatically-is-to-offer-good-legal-alternatives.shtml

Netflix Australia seems to have better movies than US. Canada is best for content.

Private Internet access. Does the job for me, most reviews for it are really good. Could be some free or cheaper ones out there just as good though.

Probably a separate thread for this... but any VPNs you guys recommend? A few of my mates use IPVanish?

Ideally you want something that is fast, isn't HQ'd in a "Five Eyes" nation and doesn't keep logs.

https://torrentfreak.com/anonymous-vpn-service-provider-review-2015-150228/

I'm using PIA too, but really unhappy with its speed. Checking around for other options.

I was struggling with speed with PIA but it has improved a lot for me in the last few months.

^ That is all

Ideally you want something that is fast, isn't HQ'd in a "Five Eyes" nation and doesn't keep logs.

https://torrentfreak.com/anonymous-vpn-service-provider-review-2015-150228/

Or don't torrent ..www.warez-bb.org