Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday December 16 2016, @02:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the arrg-mateys-look-at-us dept.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that ISPs will have to block access to piracy sites and divert Australians towards a web page created by movie studios, the Federal court ruled on Thursday afternoon.

In a case that covers more than fifty Australian internet service providers [ISPs], Justice John Nicholas of the Federal Court in Sydney ruled in favour of movie studios, including Roadshow Films, Colombia Pictures, Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.

The movie studios must now create and host a website within five days, to which Australian ISPs will direct any user who tries to connect to (initially) the SolarMovie pirating site. The content owners will also have to pay the ISPs $50 for every site they want blocked.

[...] In his decision Justice Nicholas said there were 61 sites that infringed Australian copyright laws by making films available online without licence from the copyright owners.

In relation to The Pirate Bay he wrote: "I am satisfied that the facilitation of the infringement of copyright is flagrant, and that the operator of the The Pirate Bay sites has shown a blatant and wilful disregard for the rights of copyright owners".

[...] Hollywood studios tried to get ISPs to crack down on piracy in 2012, but failed after the High Court found internet providers are not liable for copyright infringement.

VPN use is already taking off in Australia. This will just increase the uptake.
https://www.cnet.com/au/news/vpn-use-increases-in-australia-amid-data-retention-and-piracy-concerns/

Australia's Federal Court has handed down a decision to block piracy websites but sided with the ISPs that the content holders should foot the bill. The means of blocking is to be agreed on by the content holders and ISPs.

Media Reports:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/piracy/federal-court-expected-to-hand-down-decision-on-blocking-illegal-torrent-and-streaming-sites-today/news-story/c1b0349a2cc6e3fb96007ddf04742efc
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-15/federal-court-orders-pirate-bay-blocked-in-australia/8116912

Actual decision :
http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2016/2016fca1503


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Roo_Boy on Friday December 16 2016, @05:56AM

    by Roo_Boy (1762) on Friday December 16 2016, @05:56AM (#441968)
    There is section 11 of the judgement:

    11.    The owner or operator of a Target Online Location and the owner or operator of any website who claims to be affected by these orders may apply on 3 days’ written notice, including notice to all parties, to vary or discharge these orders, with any such application to:

    (a)    set out the orders sought by the owner or operator of the Target Online Location or affected website; and

    (b)    be supported by evidence as to:

    (i)    the status of the owner or operator of the Target Online Location or affected website; and

    (ii)    the basis upon which the variation or discharge is sought.

    So basically, lawyers at 20 paces...

    --
    --- The S.I. prototype "Average Punter" is kept in a tube of inert gas in Geneva.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Friday December 16 2016, @06:51AM

    by MostCynical (2589) on Friday December 16 2016, @06:51AM (#441978) Journal

    With no standard of proof as to rights of the Target Online Location or affected website being asserted
    How do you prove you own everything hosted on your site/s?

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday December 16 2016, @03:25PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday December 16 2016, @03:25PM (#442065)

    may apply on 3 days’ written notice

    Shit, mail doesn't even arrive within 3 days sometimes. Is this 3 days from when the notice is mailed, or received?

    Regardless, 3 days is a ridiculously short amount of time to contest something. After that, "oops, you had your chance to fight it, now you're on the list forever"?

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"