news The website for controversial anti-piracy organisation Movie Rights Group has inexplicably vanished from the Internet and its vice president of sales and marketing has quit, leading to speculation that the organisation has been shut down for good.

MRG is a new organisation which was set up in Australia last year with the aim of protecting the copyright rights of content owners in the film industry. In mid-October it was revealed that MRG had approached every major Australian ISP seeking information on users who had allegedly infringed copyright online, initially seeking the details of some 9,000 Australians who it claimed had downloaded the film Kill the Irishman.

At that stage, the company’s then-vice president of sales and marketing Gordon Walker told Delimiter at the time, there were plans to broaden the company’s efforts to other films.

Unlike the other major Australian organisation representing the film industry, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, Movie Rights Group had planned to take a different approach to piracy. Instead of legally targeting ISPs for the actions of their users, it was planning to seek to subpoena customer information from the ISPs and contact those who had allegedly infringed its copyright directly, looking to settle the matter out of court or through legal action.

The website had previously featured a prominent notice informing visitors that one of its chief services was settling lawsuits with Internet users who had allegedly infringed its clients’ copyright. However, Reddit users noted in the past several days that the organisation’s website had disappeared from the Internet.

In addition, Walker, who had acted as the company’s only known spokesperson, has updated his LinkedIn profile to note that he no longer works for the company as at November and was now a small to medium business development business consultant based in Brisbane. Walker has not responded to an emailed request for comment on the issue.

The disappearance of MRG’s website and Walker’s departure from the company have come after extensive press coverage on the company and its founders. In addition, national broadband provider Exetel has signalled it may modify its core business systems to make it more difficult for anti-piracy organisations such as Movie Rights Group to target its customers for allegedly illegally downloading content through platforms like BitTorrent.

opinion/analysis
Do I think Movie Rights Group has shut down permanently? I’m not sure. The situation is clouded at the moment. With no easy way to get in touch with the rest of the company’s owners or staff, and no real knowledge of what’s happened, I guess we’ll have to wait and see what chips may fall from this one. One thing I do know, however, is that websites don’t just disappear from the Internet for no reason.

If you do know what has occurred at Movie Rights Group, please feel free to use Delimiter’s anonymous tips line.

The Australian arm of the Pirate Party late yesterday opened fire on the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, accusing the group of “strong-arm tactics” and “extortion” in its renewed approaches to local ISPs over the past few weeks on the issue of online copyright infringement through file sharing services such as BitTorrent.

AFACT has been engaged in a long-running battle with ISPs in an effort to get them to address piracy through their networks, with the most high-profile skirmish being its lawsuit against iiNet, which is believed to be headed for the High Court. iiNet has won several legal rounds against AFACT in the case, but in the latest judgment, onlookers commented that a mechanism may have opened up for AFACT to be able to request that ISPs disconnect those illegally sharing files online — if copyright infringement notices were issued in the correct manner.

In a recent letter to ISPs, AFACT requested that talks be opened on file sharing, noting it would proceed with an unspecified action if it did not hear from the ISP within a week. However, the Pirate Party, which broadly advocates for intellectual property legislative change and digital rights in Australia, isn’t impressed with AFACT’s move.

“These veiled threats are nothing more than intimidation tactics that once again clearly display the extent that Big Media will go to in their failing attempts to protect their flawed business models. Extortion is a new low even for AFACT.” said Pirate Party Australia acting secretary Brendan Molloy in a statement issued by the party yesterday.

“It is completely inappropriate to have closed-room discussions even before the iiNet court case has concluded, and even more inappropriate to make veiled threats to begin yet another court case for not attending these ‘voluntary talks’.”

Countries such as New Zealand and the US are implementing graduated response mechanisms to online copyright infringement by Internet users, which sees a number of warnings or ‘strikes’ given before action is taken. However, Molloy said such a scheme would not be implemented in Australia “without a fight”.

“Pirate Party Australia condemns this blatant example of legal strong-arm tactics, a reflection of the corruption and desperation at the heart of an industry that is refusing to embrace reality,” the party’s statement said. “ISPs have no obligations to take any action over unproven allegations of infringement by AFACT.”

“AFACT itself is known for sending legal threats based on nothing more than a recorded IP address. This practice blatantly ignores the realities of the average household, where the Internet connection is shared by parents, children, families and friends. Given the prevalance of home offices and work-at-home parents, if AFACT’s scheme were to be implemented, families could see their livelihood taken away when any person commits an act of copyright infringement using their home connection, proven or otherwise.”

The Pirate Party did appear to have made a factual mistake in its statement; incorrectly stating that AFACT’s letter had detailed a seven day response time for customers to respond to online infringement notices send to them through ISPs. In fact, the seven day response time referred to the period which ISPs had to respond to AFACT and initiate discussions with the organisation on a graduated response scheme.

“We can’t respond to extreme views based on misunderstanding and incorrect facts from the Pirate Party,” said an AFACT spokesperson in response.

Image credit: Penny Mathews, royalty free

update Several of Australia’s major internet service providers have cautiously indicated support for a proposal unveiled by iiNet last week to set up an independent authority to administer allegations of copyright infringement by internet users.

iiNet’s vision would see an authority set up to manage the increasingly fractious relationship between ISPs, their customers and film, music and television studios. The authority would not focus on disconnecting users from the internet following infringements as some other countries are, but would have the power to issue fines and demerits to those who had purloined television shows, films and music online.

The move comes weeks after the conclusion of an appeal in the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft’s two-year long court case raised against the ISP and won by iiNet — pending an expected second appeal to the High Court.

Most of the industry is remaining quiet on the issue, but several spokespeople did reveal a view this week — such as John Lindsay, Internode’s general manager of regulatory and corporate affairs. “Internode supports the model that iiNet is proposing and will continue to work with rights holders to promote legal content like FetchTV, iTunes and ABC iView to its subscribers,” Lindsay said.

An Optus spokesperson said the telco would to review this proposal in more detail before making any further comment. “However we do welcome proposals like this that try to address this important issue in a collaborative way,” they added. A Telstra spokesperson didn’t go into detail, but did note the telco supported the view put forward by telco representative body the Communications Alliance last week that iiNet’s proposal should be investigated further.

Last week, Communications Alliance chief executive John Stanton said the group and some of the nation’s largest ISPs had been meeting with “leading content owners” in recent weeks to explore whether an industry-led solution could be found to the “complex set of issues” around copyright infringement.

“We want to continue that dialogue and broaden the discussion to include other stakeholders to help address copyright concerns and foster greater access for Australian consumers to legitimate and commercially available online content”,” said Stanton in a statement last week, noting the model proposed by iiNet represented “a potential solution that warranted further study”.

“Whatever the solution, we believe it will be more robust and sustainable if it flows from a shared desire from content owners and ISPs to agree arrangements that benefit consumers and all sides of the industry,” he said.

If a solution was to be found to the issue, it would likely require the involvement of the Federal Government. A spokesperson for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy wasn’t available this afternoon to comment on the issue, but Conroy himself has previously stated that the industry was awaiting the result of the iiNet trial versus AFACT.

Image credit: Henning Buchholz, royalty free

opinion I have a confession to make: Like most outwardly normal middle class Australians, I have a dirty little secret that I can’t seem to expunge, despite my best intentions and numerous attempts at breaking its filthy addictive hold.

It’s a hidden problem which I have only admitted to my closest friends and family, something which keeps me up at night, moaning about ‘my precious’, wondering whether I will ever get free of its vice-like grip, or whether I will remain slave to its dominating power for ever, locked in thrall and unable to escape.

Yes, it’s true. I am absolutely addicted to cruising Valve’s Steam service looking for bargains on games which I will probably never have enough time to play.

As I’m sure many of you fellow addicts out there well know, Steam is a digital platform which lets you download video games to play on your computer. But it’s not just any digital platform. In fact, it is nothing less than a massive repository of almost every sort of PC video game that has ever been created, and publisher Valve is constantly adding both new and old titles to its library.

There are two reasons the service is so addictive.

Firstly, it appeals to the pack rat in me. Valve has an immense back catalogue of games listed in Steam — if you loved a PC game in your childhood, odds are the company has already added it to its list, or is talking with the game’s publisher to do so. And many of these titles regularly go on sale, especially around Christmas time, when, like a cackling evil Santa Claus, Valve conducts a massive series of sales designed to bankrupt every PC gamer and fill its pockets with fat stacks of diamond-encrusted thousand dollar bills.

Because you know the games on Steam will only be on sale for a brief period, there is a huge incentive to pay for it right then and there and keep it installed on your computer … even if you will never actually play it.

The second factor is just as dangerous for the addictive personality.

Valve regularly lists upcoming titles on the front page of its disgustingly attractive online store. What this means is that for months before a game actually goes on sale, you will log in every day to see screenshots of that game staring at you in the face, glistening like a vision of honey-coated perfection. You don’t want to pre-order them, because you don’t even know if they’ll be that good. But you still will — often for a paltry 5 percent off their cover price — because after staring at a game promotion every day for months on end, you always end buying it.

I narrate this story to demonstrate why iiNet’s compromise proposal yesterday on the issue of internet content piracy is only a halfway solution.

On paper, iiNet’s solution makes sense; by setting up an independent authority to handle copyright infringement disputes and dole out minor punishments the same way traffic police dish out speeding fines, both ISPs and film, movie and music studios get a more reliable way to tackle internet content piracy — an activity which is, after all, against the law — despite the fact that that law is completely unenforceable.

And the actual customers won’t have their internet disconnected for offences which are, after all, relatively minor in modern Australian society, earning themselves mere slaps on the wrist instead.

However, the problem with iiNet’s scheme is that its ‘traffic police’ analogy is far from apt for the situation which Australians find themselves in with respect to watching TV and movie content.

Motorists who speed, cross double white lines or commit any other traffic offence don’t have to do so. If they want to avoid fines or even losing their licence, they can simply obey the law — drive safely, within the speed limits, signal correctly and don’t talk on their mobile phone while simultaneously eating a Big Mac and overtaking a semi-trailer.

But what legal option do Australians currently have if they want to get the latest TV shows and movies as soon as they are released overseas? Very few.

As iiNet notes in its own paper, film and TV studios use “staggered release dates and queuing distribution channels” to make sure that Australians always get the latest content later — sometimes six months or more later — than our US or European cousins.

In addition, when the content does arrive, often it’s only broadcast through certain TV channels at certain times; times when you may — imagine! — have to work or carry out some other responsibility, and thus be prohibited from consuming it. Sure, you might be able to digitally record the broadcast, if you knew it was on, but I’m not sure whether even that common practice is completely legal.

As iiNet noted in its paper, this approach creates “a frustrated and unsatisfied market” — and one that is often resigned to simply bulk-renting DVDs six months after their favourite TV show has hit the US, if they want to keep within the boundaries of the law. Online DVD rental service Quickflix is thriving for a reason.

The same frustration is currently felt by other content sectors … as the scores of Australians who cannot quite get the eBooks they want will attest.

If a piracy authority is established, but the gates of content are not opened and geographical restrictions erased, this frustration will exponentially increase. Australians will be unable to get the content they want in a timely manner — legally or illegally — and will make that frustration known. The current safety valve which exists in the BitTorrent peer to peer file distribution system will cease to let off the nation’s steam.

The Baby Boomers, Generation X and other older generations may put up with this, more or less. But the simple reality is that Generation Y will not. The younger generation (well, I say younger, but some of them are almost 30) will howl with rage if they cannot get what they want, when they want it.

This war will not be unlike the constant series of running battles the video game industry is fighting with the Federal Government over the need for an R18+ rating, or the seething discontent that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy created with his internet content filter project.

Going back to where we began, the irony is that the TV and film industry has a way to get around this potential public relations and political nightmare. It can simply create a platform like Steam, where new and old content is constantly added to an easily accessible online library instantly accessible by anyone in the world from any device.

It can even charge a premium for such a service. Packrats like me would pay to collect all of the episodes in dozens of series, and many directors’ complete cinematic back catalogue … just in case we might watch it one day.

Especially during those demonic Christmas specials.

Image credit: Andronicus Riyono, royalty free

Justice Cowdroy today handed iiNet a sound victory in the Australian ISP’s long-running battle against a coalition of film and television studios, finding that iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement carried out by its customers using the BitTorrent file-sharing platform.

“We have never supported or encouraged breaches of the law, including infringement of the Copyright Act or the Telecommunications Act,” the ISP said in a statement following the judgement. “Today’s judgement is a vindication of that, and the allegations against us have been proven to be unfounded.

The ISP said the judgement marked “the end of the matter” and it would get on with its busness, noting it had continued to grow customers and revenue during the trial, as well as launching products and signing agreements with a number of content providers.

“We are eager to engage with the film industry and copyright holders to make this material legitimately available,” the company said.

iiNet had suspended trading of its shares on the Australian Stock Exchange this morning while the judgement was handed down. However, upon resumption of trading this afternoon, the company’s share price immediately rose by 11.11 per cent. At the time of publication it was trading at $2.20.

Look out for our one on one interview with iiNet chief executive Michael Malone later today.

Justice Cowdroy today handed iiNet a sound victory in the Australian ISP’s long-running battle against a coalition of film and television studios, finding that iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement carried out by its customers.

The studios first dragged iiNet (and its chief executive Michael Malone, pictured) into the Federal Court back in November 2008, arguing that the ISP infringed copyright by failing to take reasonable steps — including enforcing its own terms and conditions — to prevent customers copying films and TV shows over its network.

However, in a packed courtroom in Sydney today, Justice Cowdroy said he found that iiNet did not authorise the infringement of the studios’ copyright.

“The mere provision of access to the internet is not an authorisation of infringement,” he said.

Cowdroy made it clear that the means of infringing the studios’ copyright was the use by iiNet customers of the BitTorrent file-sharing system. “iiNet has no control over BitTorrent,” he said.

The judge added that the notification scheme proposed by the studios and their representative, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) for ISPs to notify their customers of a breach of copyright and take action such as suspending or terminating their accounts was not a reasonable process.

While the judge noted that his reasons for making the finding were “complicated and lengthy”, they hinged on the idea that iiNet had done no more than provide an internet service to its users.

This differed from the previous Kazaa case, Cowdroy said, in that the Kazaa organisation was encouraging its users to breach copyright.

Cowdroy noted separately that the Telecommunications Act would not have prevented iiNet from acting on the AFACT notices of infringement, as iiNet had claimed. However, he noted that this fact did not end up being relevant to the case as iiNet did not authorise a breach of copyright.

Similarly, Cowdroy noted iiNet did have a repeat infringer policy for its customers, and would have been entitled to shelter under the ‘safe harbour’ provisions of the Copyright Act. However, similarly as iiNet did not authorise the infringement of copyright, this was not revelant to the case.

Ultimately, Cowdroy concluded that there was enough evidence to show widespread copyright infringement occurring “worldwide”. However, he said this cannot necessitate or compel a finding of authorisation of infringement of copyright in the case, and said the infringements of copyright were “significantly” less than AFACT had alleged.

The justice also found that when ISP customers used BitTorrent to download copyrighted material, they were making one copy only of the material. In addition, he pointed out BitTorrent itself could be used for legitimate purposes.

Cowdroy ordered that the studios’ application be dismissed and that they pay iiNet’s legal costs.

Image credit: iiNet

Update: A comprehensive overview of the judgement can be found here.

Australian ISP iiNet was today announced as the victor in its long-running defence against a lawsuit by major film and TV studios represented by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT).

Justice Cowdroy announced the verdict to a packed courtroom in Sydney today.

The studios first dragged iiNet into the Federal Court back in November 2008, arguing that the ISP infinged copyright by failing to take reasonable steps — including enforcing its own terms and conditions — to prevent customers copying films and TV shows over its network.

iiNet CEO Michael Malone (pictured) was among many to take the witness stand at the trial.

The action was filed by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises and the Seven Network (Australian licensee of some of the infringed works).

The trial has been viewed by Australia’s ISP industry as a major landmark case to help determine how ISPs will react in future to users using their networks to download copyrighted material. iiNet had not been forwarding email communication from AFACT to users who AFACT had alleged had breached copyright, whereas some other ISPs have been complying with the request.

More information on the verdict to follow.

Image credit: iiNet

The ruling comes suprisingly early for the case, which only concluded in court late last year after several months of fiery submissions from both sides.

The battle has been raging in the courtroom and in print since late November 2008, when AFACT, representing movie and TV studios Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc and the Seven Network, sued iiNet for letting its users allegedly download their copyrighted content (including films such as Batman: The Dark Knight) over the internet.

It is seen as a landmark case in Australia’s entertainment industry as content providers grapple with the ease of pirating their material via the internet.

An AFACT spokesperson confirmed the date of the ruling, while another AFACT spokesperson separately said the organisation was looking forward to the verdict but couldn’t comment further.