TorrentFreak Email Update |
- iiNet Fights Off Hollywood, ISP Not Responsible For Online Piracy
- BTDigg, The First ‘Trackerless’ Torrent Search Engine
- Landmark ISP Piracy Liability Court Ruling Due Tomorrow
| iiNet Fights Off Hollywood, ISP Not Responsible For Online Piracy Posted: 23 Feb 2011 11:16 PM PST The Full Bench of the Federal Court in Australia has just dismissed the movie industry’s appeal against last year’s judgment which found that ISP iiNet did not authorize the copyright infringements of its file-sharing customers. Represented by anti-piracy group AFACT, nearly three dozen Hollywood and local studios took iiNet to court in 2008. In a 2009 trial the ISP was accused of doing nothing to stop its customers downloading films and TV shows but in February 2010 the Federal Court decided that iiNet was not responsible for their activities. An appeal was heard later that year and today the decision was handed down. Justice Emmett said that the Court continued to agree that the rights of the movie companies had been infringed but could not find in their favor. “While I disagree with the primary judge's reasoning in significant respects, I am nevertheless of the opinion that his Honour's decision to dismiss the proceeding was correct,” the ruling reads. “In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed.” The ruling itself is an absolutely huge affair and will take a considerable time to digest, but at this early stage it seems quite clear that even after two years of legal battles, this fight is probably still not over. “Even though the Copyright Owners are not entitled to the relief claimed in this proceeding, it does not follow that that is an end of the matter. It is clear that the questions raised in the proceeding are ongoing,” the ruling reads. “It does not necessarily follow that there would never be authorisation within the meaning of s 101 of the Copyright Act by a carriage service provider, where a user of the services provided by the carriage service provider engages in acts of infringement such as those about which complaint is made in this proceeding. “It does not necessarily follow from the failure of the present proceeding that circumstances could not exist whereby iiNet might in the future be held to have authorised primary acts of infringement on the part of users of the services provided to its customers under its customer service agreements.” Nevertheless, on the thorny demand by AFACT that iiNet should have blindly sent out warnings and suspend customer accounts based on the information it provided, the ruling is clear. “I do not think [iiNet] could reasonably be expected to issue warnings, or to terminate or suspend particular accounts, in reliance upon any such notice in circumstances where it has been told nothing at all about the methods used to obtain the information which lead to the issue of the notice,” it reads. “Nor should it be up to the respondent to seek out this information from a copyright owner who chooses not to provide it in the first place.” iiNet chief executive Michael Malone said he was “relieved” at the outcome. "Our original contention was upheld that we don’t believe we ever authorised or did anything to encourage customers to breach copyright," he said. "We’ve won at the lower court, we’ve won at the Federal Court now in the appeal, but all this legal action hasn’t stopped one customer from downloading anywhere in Australia.” “Same as we said last time, invite the rights holders back, let’s make the content available legally and legitimately so customers can get access to it, and let’s find a better way to be able to police those who don’t do the right thing.” Malone went on to state that the overall problem of deciding to what extent ISPs can be held liable will have to be solved by the government. AFACT boss Neil Gane was clearly disappointed at the decision. “It cannot be right that, in effect, the ISP, who has the power to prevent copyright infringement online and admitted they were taking place, does not share the responsibility to stop them,” he said. “Copyright infringement now goes on unabated on the Internet.” While Justice Emmett and Justice Nicholas dismissed the appeal, Gane said he was encouraged that Justice Jagot had sided with the movie industry. “We take heart however, that Justice Jagot found for us and that Justice Emmett said that we were successful on many grounds. “We will be taking our time now to examine the judgment in detail and consider all of our options.” It is widely believed that the case will now proceed to Australia’s High Court. |
| BTDigg, The First ‘Trackerless’ Torrent Search Engine Posted: 23 Feb 2011 01:53 PM PST
In short, all search engines search through a database of .torrent files, either uploaded by users of their own site, or pulled from other places on the web. These torrent files are stored online and if a person creates a new torrent file he or she has to upload it somewhere for it to be picked up by torrent search engines. BTDigg does things differently. Instead of relying on .torrent files this search engine uses BitTorrent’s DHT to discover new files. DHT enables so-called “trackerless torrents”, a feature supported by all major BitTorrent clients. DHT's function is to find peers who are downloading the same files, but without communicating with a central BitTorrent tracker. This is useful in the event that a central tracker goes down. DHT is enabled by default in clients such as uTorrent and Vuze and millions of people are already using it without knowing. Unlike conventional torrent search engines, BTDigg’s servers are now using information from BitTorrent’s DHT network to find and index torrents. Although we can’t really say that this is better or more efficient than the traditional search engine approach, it’s certainly a fresh perspective. Another benefit is that people can theoretically share something without using a tracker, and without having to upload it to a torrent site. If DHT is enabled the file will be eventually picked up by BTDigg. In theory, this is another step towards a truly decentralized BitTorrent ecosystem. This was also one of the main reasons why BTDigg was launched, the site’s founder told us. “We think that the Internet’s moving towards to decentralized and distributed systems and would like to contribute to it by creating BTDigg,” he said. Contrary to the progressive concept, the design of BTDigg is rather retro. All users get to see is a search box, and the search results are presented in a l33t user interface. The search results show users detailed information on the various files, including the title, file size and a download link. “We use information about the count of peers and the time of the last access to present users with the most relevant results,” the site’s founder further explained. The downloads on BTDigg go through magnet links instead of the more traditional torrents. Since BTDigg uses the DHT network to find files there are no torrents involved at all, even though the files all come from other BitTorrent users. BTDigg’s founder told TorrentFreak that they will keep improving the site in the weeks to come, and we were ensured that a redesign is also in the planning. It will be interesting to see where this goes, and for traditional search engines DHT might be another interesting (but resource consuming) source of content. |
| Landmark ISP Piracy Liability Court Ruling Due Tomorrow Posted: 23 Feb 2011 10:38 AM PST
Tomorrow, a full bench of the Federal Court of Australia will announce their decision on whether an earlier ruling on the issue should stand or be overturned. The former would mean that ISPs and file-sharing subscribers can cautiously crack open a bottle of bubbly. The latter and opposite outcome is the one favored by the entertainment industries. The epic legal battle dates back to 2008, when AFACT – the Hollywood-backed Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft – began legal action against ISP iiNet. AFACT claimed that the Perth-based ISP had authorized the copyright infringements of its BitTorrenting subscriber base by failing to stop them from sharing unauthorized material. AFACT had monitored iiNet users in their allegedly illicit activities and sent corresponding infringement notices to the ISP. When iiNet failed to suspend or terminate customer accounts on the basis of these notices (which were based on untested AFACT-gathered evidence), the fight was on. After close to a month in court during October and November 2009, with countless documents perused and a parade of witnesses heard, the Court was adjourned. For close to three months both sides had to wait for the decision of Justice Cowdroy. In early February 2010 his ruling came, but for AFACT and the near three dozen movie and TV show companies supporting it in the case, the news was bad. Although Justice Cowdroy agreed that the studio's copyrights had indeed been infringed upon, he decided that iiNet did not authorize the copyright infringing activities of its subscribers and therefore could not be held responsible for their actions. "It is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement … [iiNet] did not have relevant power to prevent infringements occurring," Justice Cowdroy said in his judgment. BitTorrent networks were outside the control of the ISP, Cowdroy said, adding that the ISP was covered under so-called "safe harbor" provisions. AFACT executive director Neil Gane described the ruling as “a set back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry," and late February 2010 he announced that AFACT would appeal. "The court found large scale copyright infringements, that iiNet knew they were The waiting since last year’s appeal seems to have gone on forever but is set to end tomorrow. Will it be victory for iiNet, ISPs and subscribers everywhere? Or will copyright holders be the ones celebrating? Tune in to find out. |
To fully grasp the novelty of the newly launched DHT search engine 
Should Internet service providers be held responsible if customers use their services to share unauthorized movies, TV shows and music? It’s a question that has been asked dozens of times worldwide during the past several years and one that Australia should be a little closer to having an answer to on Thursday.| You are subscribed to email updates from TorrentFreak To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment