Mass piracy lawsuits: ISPs go completely silent


news Australia’s top five largest ISPs have refused to comment on how they will handle approaches from a new company which is planning to target thousands of their customers with threatened legal action pertaining to alleged online copyright infringements through file sharing platforms like BitTorrent over the past twelve months.

Over the weekend, it was revealed that the company — named Movie Rights Group — 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. There are plans to broaden the company’s efforts to other films.

The company’s existence was revealed following a blog post by John Linton, the chief executive of smaller ISP Exetel. Movie Rights Group is seeking customer data regarding some 150 Exetel customers. However, over the past four days, none of Linton’s colleagues at Australia’s other major ISPs have commented on the matter. Delimiter had approached the ISPs inviting comment on whether they had received a communication from Movie Rights Group and how they were planning to respond.

“Nothing to add from our end at this stage,” said a Telstra spokesperson when questioned on the matter. Internode managing director Simon Hackett similarly declined to comment on the issue when approached directly, while spokespeople from iiNet, Optus and TPG did not respond to requests for comment filed over a four day period.

It is believed that Movie Rights Group’s approach will be to seek to settle cases of alleged copyright infringement with Australians out of court. It will be one of the first cases where this approach has been taken in Australia. So far in Australia, most legal action aimed at those who infringe copyright has focused on ISPs such as iiNet who provide the mechanism – Internet access – for it to take place. However, Move Rights Group appears to be merely seeking information from the ISPs through a legal discovery process – rather than targeting them directly.

However, in the US, for example, the practice is widespread, with the Recording Industry Association of America, for example, launching an early settlement program in 2007 which targeted thousands of users with offers to settle cases of copyright infringement. According to Arstechnica, the average amount being settled was about $3,000 at the time.

It appears likely that the company’s approach will bear some fruit.

Although Exetel’s Linton has not yet disclosed what his company’s approach to Movie Rights Group’s approach will be, in his blog post last week, the executive noted that his own company’s lawyer had accepted that it was “almost certainly the case under standard commercial Australian law” that Movie Rights Group could legally subpoena the users’ information it needs. “They will review the cited references but their opinion is that, subject to final validation, if a subpoena is issued then no company, Exetel or any other ISP has any option but to comply with it,” wrote Linton.

Move Rights Group’s approach has already been severely criticised by digital rights groups Electronic Frontiers Australia and the Pirate Party Australia, which have respectively labelled the effort as risking disproportionate punishment to users and as “extortion” carried out by “copyright trolls”.

We maintain a pretty open and friendly relationship with all of Australia’s major ISPs, and speak to them regularly. In fact, with some of the ISPs, we’re discussing other matters with them right now. The fact that none of them have been willing to comment on the Movie Rights Group situation indicates that they are all considering their legal options right now.

However, it seems reasonable to expect that if any of the ISPs do provide Movie Rights Group with information belonging to their customers, that they inform the customers of that fact immediately.

Image credits: Paul Brunskill


  1. “if a subpoena is issued”

    Implying that no such subpoena has been issued yet. I wonder if a court would be happy to issue a subpoena for the details of 9,000 people? Presumably Movie Rights Group are expecting to take all 9,000 people to court… otherwise, it’s just extortion, right?

    • The Movie Rights Group will express intention to take them all to court simply to avoid accusations of extortion. But thinly-veiled extortion it is nevertheless.

      As we’ve seen in similar US cases, it is impractical for these guys to drag any sizable number of people through the courts over this. They’re sitting back, crossing their fingers that everyone settles and no one calls their bluff.

      • I thought extortion was against the law. Have our wonderful *cough* Parliamentarians created a conflict of law in our laws again? And if extortion is now allowed in Australian law, who will it be a tool for and who will be denied the ability to use it and thus denied due fair justice.
        Another nice mess from Canberra. And we vote for these Corporate Noddies?

          • Are you saying that the end justifies the means? That breaking one law is OK if you’re doing it to “punish” someone for breaking another?

          • They wouldn’t have a business if people didn’t pirate the stuff in the first place.

          • Well obviously, but that still doesn’t justify extortion. That Ars Technica article someone linked to below is a good example of what I’m talking about — that firm doesn’t even have a litigator, they just send out threatening letters to people demanding they pay up. And looking at some of the replies they got, it’s pretty obvious that the people receiving the threatening letters have no idea what P2P even is, let alone how you’d use it to download a movie.

            Is that kind of response acceptable to the problem of movie pirating, do you think? Is that what you want to see come to Australia?

          • I don’t agree with them trying it on with innocent people. If they want to sue people who have stolen a copy of something, go for it. If it’s more than the value of the movie fine. After all charging them only the value of the movie is no deterent and is economical.

          • “I don’t agree with them trying it on with innocent people. If they want to sue people who have stolen a copy of something, go for it.”

            Firstly, it’s not stealing. Secondly, how do you differentiate the innocent from the guilty? If you just letter bomb the owners of every account associated with every IP address that ever downloaded a movie, you’re going to get a huge number of innocent people.

            Then there’s the question of how, logistically, you can sue thousands of people. The courts would be clogged with cases, and who can afford to fend off a lawsuit for downloading a movie worth $30?

          • So, how would you do it? How would you enforce a copyright on something you spent a lot of time and money to produce in an economically viable way.

          • Don’t say you’d be happy to just let them have it. It’s 6000 people they caught, there would be more. If you truly would be happy, send me a check for $180,000 now since it matters so little to you.

          • I’ve released software in the past, so I know what it’s like to make money from something you created.

            Basically I make it as easy as possible for people to download legally (e.g. the way iTunes and the Android/Apple App Store works is a good example of a model that works well, IMO). I also charge a fee that’s appropriate, for most software on the App Store, $5 or more is too much. For a movie download, I would think about the same is acceptable. A single music track at about $2. Etc.

            You can also make money other ways. For example, collaborations with brands, advertising,

            Then I honestly don’t care. Sending you a cheque for $180,000 isn’t the same thing because I’m not losing any money when someone downloads my work without paying me.

          • Yes, the app store is a good model. In fact it’s the majority of what is left of the games development industry in Australia. Low distribution costs. Very little piracy. Games require a lot less money to develop compared to PC and console games. It’s also a win for the consumer because of this. They can purchase games for a few dollars because the majority goes to the developer. With the high price PC and console games a developer would be lucky to see even 5-10 bucks a copy. More if they also publish. Even a B grade game can cost near $10mil and another $20 mil for advertising, manufacture and other costs. The model has save a number of Australian comnpanies.

      • See this is why I think a smart judge would just throw the request to subpoena out. If you’re not planning on taking all 9,000 people to court, then there’s no reason to subpoena their details. If you are planning to take 9,000 people to court, it’s a complete waste of the court’s time when you can really only claim each individual person is infringing on a $30 movie.

  2. It is important to note that the practice of targeting individual users has proven to be massively unprofitable for the media industry in the US. US anti-RIAA/MPAA campaigner/lawyer Ray Beckerman summarises it thusly: ( )

    “for a 3 year period, they spent around $64,000,000 in legal and investigative expenses to recover around $1,361,000”

    I would like to think that Australian entities have not tried this tactic over here because they don’t have their heads as completely up their asses as their US counterparts. Maybe this Movie Rights Group will take things to a new low though.

    Until they actually start sending court orders to ISPs to get customer information this is a bit of a non-event and the most likely worst-case scenario is that you get one of those standard warning letters that the ISP send you in order to placate these entities.

    In the meantime, I will continue to look at the massive holes in the online digital media industry that exist in the Australian market because the media companies are too stupid, lazy, or incompetent to handle their international rights management in a way that means people outside of the US are actually able to legally enjoy new content.

  3. This is rediculous. So who’s held responsible if somebody decides to “borrow” an unsuspecting person’s unsecured wifi connection, to engage in acts of piracy?

    • if it comes to that, they may be able to take your PC as evidence and find the movie files you deleted…

      • Yes they could confiscate your PC and your hard drives but I suspect that this would require far more police intervention that simply filing a subpoena to get the ISPs to give up your details.

        I’m not too sure what the legal process is for search warrants but I strongly doubt that merely the allegation that you downloaded a movie and an IP address is enough to warrant the granting of a search warrant for your property.

        If warrants were granted on this basis, I shudder to think what the legal implications would be.

        • Not to mention, if you were going to fight them, the first thing you would do is destroy the evidence ; D

          How hard is it to destroy your computers/hard drives, buy a new one, put the legal content you own on it and dump the old hardware in pieces/melted heaps into bins around the place.

          And that’s if you are paranoid and don’t trust scrubbing programs to do the work for you.

  4. “indicates that they are all considering their legal options right now”


    They have agreed to say nothing, for whatever reason. They talk to each other too you know!

  5. “This is rediculous. So who’s held responsible if somebody decides to “borrow” an unsuspecting person’s unsecured wifi connection, to engage in acts of piracy?”

    From what I establish, it is the person who has signed on for the internet service that would be at risk of charges (Even if the piracy commited on their connection was by a third party wireless network intruder)

  6. I haven’t heard of ‘Kill the Irishman’ but maybe I should fire up TOR or use my neighbours’ wifi (he’s always stealing mine, anyway), and download it to see what all the fuss is about…

  7. so they have acquired the rights of the movie in order to perform this shakedown?

    how did they go about collecting this ‘evidence’ of 9000 addresses?

    • how did they go about collecting this ‘evidence’ of 9000 addresses?

      Have you read anything related to this article or anything to do with the iiNet case? It’s pretty well covered how they obtain the IP addresses.

      • I’m curious about this too. Is the ‘evidence’ obtained by illegally (?) intercepting data flowing between ISPs and their customers, or is it by illegally (?) trawling through customers hard drives with a covert program? Is there a reference to this in the iiNet case court reports?

        • As Terry says, it’s all pretty well documented how they do it. Basically they look at Bit Torrent trackers, connect to all of the IPs listed and query for the movie in question. If the IP address responds in the affirmative, then they’ve got a hit.

          There’s nothing illegal in the way they collect the data (assuming they have the permission of the copyright holders, since they basically have to download the copyrighted item in question), and the “false positive” rate is actually pretty low.

          (That is to say, the false positive rate of which IP addresses have which movies is low — ignoring the question of how you connect an IP address to a physical person in order to sue them)

          • This is not necessarily true. the false positive rate is low if you are looking for users that are taking part in the torrent. by its very nature the IP address could have only just joined the swarm and only have a single kB of the movie – this is why it is actually a lot more complicated as the users can only be proved to be “trying” to download.

            unless you actually have a harddrive with the full movie on it, there is no absolute proof…

          • this is why it is actually a lot more complicated as the users can only be proved to be “trying” to download.

            Intent to break the law is still a crime

      • Feel sorry for the people who have had there computer compromised and had software installed to allow other people to tunnel though and use their IPs ;)

        Saying something download something by IPs is flawed.

  8. I wonder who originally made the movie “Kill the Irishman” available by Bit Torrent. If it was anybody even remotely associated with the Movie Rights Group then I hope they have covered their tracks very well – else they will be discovered, and by effectively publishing the movie for free download then they will have absolutely no recourse what-so-ever.

    • I think we all know who posted this movie, i think they call this sort of scheme a honeypot.

      But the rights to a film, upload it and seed it using many connections to boost it’s popularity and then sue everybody who joins the torrent.

  9. Lets also hope that these major Australian ISPs being talked about here are not considering this as a potential income stream, i.e. selling out a customer’s identity (name & address) from their IP log for $100 a pop. I for one would leave my current ISP if they started doing that.

    • isnt it just illegal to share a copyrighted movie ie P2P. Just stop using P2P Whats stopping people from just going onto IRC and downloading direct. Your not sharing the movie, its just being “sent” to you thus not breaking any copyright laws.

  10. wonder if they picked a movie nobody has heard of, just to use a smaller number of targets as a test case. I’ve been to the movies like 6 times in the last few months and i’ve never heard of it.

  11. What about a person who had their internet hacked and someone had been using their internet usage for months? How can the Movie Rights Group prove that you personally downloaded that movie? This all seems pretty corrupt to me and more of a scare tactic to reduce piracy in Australia. Though we are such a small percentage of users in the world that download pirated material.

    • So true, you get people driving around with their laptops getting into open networks to download movie’s etc.

  12. They’ll get NOTHING from me, they can go to the Devil for all I care. They’re nothing but greedy parasites whose business-model deserves to fail. And I’m disgusted that ISPs will roll-over for these corporate criminals.

    • Yer, how dare they try to sue you! It’s your right to steal peoples property with impunity!

      The attitude that people have to just stealing others work makes me sick. Fair enough some people do it, but to act as though it’s somehow your RIGHT to do so, that’s just lake of any sort of guilt or morals when it comes to depriving people of income from products they invested a lot into to produce. Just because so many people do it doesn’t make it ok or moral.

      • You think it’s stealing, OK, fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. And mine is that, so long as you don’t profit from it or redistribute it, then it is FAIR USE, not ‘stealing’. Downloading a song or movie or TV show for PERSONAL, NON-PROFIT USE is NOT stealing, IMO. Reproducing it and selling copies of it for profit IS stealing. There IS a difference.
        BTW, I have NO problem with artists, actors and performers getting my money (I go to the movies and PAY, and I go to live concerts and PAY, and I watch Austar and PAY), but I do begrudge these parasitic middle-men and their legal lackeys every cent they get.

        I daresay you’ll disagree, but there you go. That’s my opinion, and I’m sticking to it.

        • So, do you expect the artists and actors to learn to track who is downloading copies of their products and then maybe learn law and take them to court themselves? I don’t care if it’s for personal use or not, the product was produced at a cost to someone and you are watching/playing it without contributing to offsetting that cost. The end result? Companies going broke. I worked for 20 years as a games developer. Now the Australian games industy is a shadow of it’s former self. Companies closing left right and centre. Some break even or make a small profit. I am not saying piracy is the sole cause. But it’s not nice to see friends you have worked with for 10-15 years made redundant because the industry isn’t profitable enough and knowing that for every copy of your games that sold there are at least one or two others that people are playing without paying a cent.
          Taking a copy for your own use is also stealing. No arguement, no opinion to discuss if it is or isn’t. The law says it’s stealing, clear cut. You say you pay for movies, why pirate them then, pay for them all. If you can’t afford to, tough. Mercedes are pretty expensive. If you think they are overpriced is that justification for stealing one?

          • Hate to break it to you, but there is one glaring flaw in your argument. And it centers around this statement:

            The law says it’s stealing, clear cut.

            No. The law does not say this. So quite frankly my friend, there is argument. However I do agree there is not opinion to discuss if it is or isn’t, because it isn’t. It is referred to as copyright infringement for a reason.

            It is not stealing or theft. It is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder’s exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works. Further, stealing is a criminal offence, copyright infringement is a civil offence.

            I would suggest you go read up on the difference. You may also be interested in fair dealing provisions in copyright law, which is an important consideration whenever discussing copyright infringement. Fair dealing outlines exceptions to copyright infringement.

          • The fair dealings provision is for recording tv programs for later viewing or making a backup of something you already own, not downloading a movie or music or a piece of software. OK, the criminal prosecution will no come into it unless you also upload the file while your file sharing but you are still open to a civil case.
            If they sue the ass off you, good for them, maybe it will make you think twice about taking something that others rely on for their lively hood. Some how I doubt it though, you will just feel victimised and feel no regret for the people who have to pay higher prices to cover your right to have a free copy.

          • Fair dealing is not a license to download a movie, song or piece of software. It states what it covers, and they are pretty reasonable. Yes, it is only a criminal offense if you upload material. For downloading it is civil. It is however still illegal and you can be sued for it. The said thing is those that are sued will probably just feel victimised. It’s a victimless crime, no one thinks of the people whose livelihoods rely on the invome for legitimate sales, the increase in sale price of those goods to cover the costs shared amongst fewer people.

          • There are two things I do not tolerate when it comes to copyright infringement, calling it theft or stealing in order to attempt to compell people into thinking it is a criminal offence, and misrepresentation if the damages it does to the affected industries. You my friend have done both in the course of this debate.

            Copyright infringement enforcement is the sole responsibility of the owner of the licence. If they have to sue tens of thousands that’s fine. But I don’t think you quite understand the moral hazard society is facing due to the way this practice is conducted, which is extortion and blackmail.

            I do not condone copyright infringement, no where in my reply to you did I say that. However, I suggest you go and read up on the morally questional practices the entities undertaking these mass privacy lawsuits before screaming about livelihoods.

            What about the livelihoods of the people who have been falsely accused and only pay because they cannot afford the legal representation required to fend off the suit? What about the fact the damages are grossly overstated to hundreds or even thousands times the value of the infringing material in order to make the suit profitable?

            I feel for your friends losing their jobs, that is why I pay for my games. But the people conducting these suits are moralless leeches. And if it comes down to the lesser of two evils, I am going to choose allowing priacy, and forcing companies to adapt to this landscape. I hope we can find a compromise before then.

            Frankly however, if you and others in your position continue with your single minded absolutist view on piracy, that it must be stopped at all costs, then we are never going to get to this compromise are we?

          • I hope there is a way to stop the piracy and I am glad you don’t pirate. I do however object to people acting like it is their right to be able to just copy movies and games.
            I don’t think it needs to be stopped at all costs.

            Single mided view? Did you even ask what my view on how it should be handled is?

            Personally I’d like the three strikes rule. Get caught 3 times, lose your net for a year or whatever. Cry unsecured wireless or flat mate using your account? Well, you had two warnings to sort it out in.

            I like the moraless leechers term, it can be applied to both sides. A leecher being someone downloading masses of data, like movies from bit torrent. And moraless in that they think it’s their right to do so.

            If you notice I didn’t get into the discussion on how it’s enforced. I though will not have people saying it’s somehow their right do download these movies and games.

          • It doesn’t work that way. The enforcement is intimately linked to the definition. The definition is intimately linked to the rights.

            Fair use is one legitimate opinion on how the rights should be delt with. By saying to Kat here that you disagree with that opinion you demonstrate the view of no priacy is acceptable.

            With that in mind, you can only come to one conclusion, means to stop all priacy. You don’t tackle fraud cases and say “but it’s okay for a small amount if fraud to occur”. Hence why I am calling you single minded.

            Also three strikes? I hope you are kidding. You do not understand there is no right to appeal right? So the media companies have the right to completely bypass the legal system now? I will never support a decision that gives that power to corporations. For the same reason I would never support Conroy’s mandatory filter.

          • Ofcourse I believe no piracy is acceptable. If it was something covered by fair dealing it would not be piracy.

            Where is the fraud you speak of? Privacy? Is there something in law that says an ISP should not review the information on a customer accused of illegal actions? Well that’s one area i think is very grey and should be clarified.

            There is some legal form of piracy that should be ok? What is it?

            Why would they be able to bypass the legal system. Since there is no three strikes system now I’d guess it would have to made fair as possible. Before it hit the legal system, that’s what we are trying to avoid right? Maybe some appeals body similar to small claims.

            What would be your answer? Just let it happen? As time goes on you don’t see that just signalling it’s ok to do it to the point where very few people ever contribute to the cost of development of the movie or other IP?

            You can certainly cry unfair on people being pulled up on piracy. Got any opinion the other way?

          • Kat mentioned Fair Use provision, i.e. An expansion of fair dealing to allow non-commercial use. This is entirely within the realms of possibility. The law is always subject to change and you best remember this.

            You are so caught up in priacy you can see the bigger picture can you? We need to amend the legal system because it is failing us. That does not mean allowing corporations free reign to use the legal framework for extortion, nor giving up power to them in the form of three strikes.

            So I ask you, what is the endgame here? Fair and reasonable compensation for work. The endgame is not prosecution of the “evil pirates” for they are merely a symptom of broken business models and legal framework.

            One proposal that has merit is an Internet Levy. You charge an extra fee to access the Internet designed to compensate media companies for fair use. The problem with that is how do you distribute it correctly and fairly.

            I don’t know the solution here, but I know one thing, it isn’t going to go away. So maybe instead of beratin gpeople undertaking morally questionable activities like Kat, and endorsing another morally questionable activity to deal with the first, like three strikes and these mass suits you develop ways to embrace the changing landscape.

            If Steam can exist and remain profitable in this landscape your friends can too.

          • So, no solution then? Oh, other than having everyone who uses the net pay a fee to cover those that pirate. Thanks for that. Maybe could do a few months in jail to cover some crime noone has be caught for.

            Of course Steam stays profitable. They have no development costs. They simple collect a fee for letting people download other peoples games.

            So, the changing landscape is you want this stuff for nothing or have someone else pay for it.

            So GenMeMeMeMe

          • So because you are unwilling to explore other options we should go for bad ones like 3 strikes? Oh yeah I love your logic.

            Further, heard of Valve, the game company that bankrolls Steam. On top of that no development costs for Steam itself? Bullshit.

          • I have yet to see you make a serious sugestion, other than have others pay for the pirates.
            Seriously, at least I have talked about options, you haven’t, other than trying to pass the cost onto other people. I don’t really see any point is continuing replying. Your obviously just interested in continuing the statis quo, free stuff for pirates the others wear the cost of.

            Yes, I have heard of Valve. Why didn’t you say that instead of confusing it with Steam, their distribution platform. I have had many games distributed on Steam, it’s no magic pill. It has less overheads than bricks and mortar distribution which helps covers costs.

            BTW, even Valve isn’t imune they have had to close studios. EA closed one in Melbourne a few weeks ago.

            Feel free to like the other posts as much as you want. You could dislike all mine if it was available. It may not be popular to want to see some curb put on piracy and many of you see nothing wrong with it. But that’s the point isn’t it, something gets done enough and it becomes ok to do it.

          • I feel sorry for you.

            I don’t have the answers, I will continue to try and think of them, but the idea of throwing people in jail, or three strikes, or extortion? These are not solutions.

            An eye for an eye only makes everyone blind.

          • I don’t see the extortion quite frankly, they are follow the law. If you get a parking ticket is it extortion? It cost them nothing for you to sit there. They are threatening to take you to court if you don’t pay. They obtained your address by contacting the RTA by getting your “private” details. Not even a sopena was required. You may not have been the driver, there are so many parallels there.
            Three strikes is a suggestion. One of very few. Most discussion on here is how to avoid being caught, how to plead innocence if you are and how you should be protected from facing any consequences of piracy. Or in the one I objected so strongly to here, how a person has some sort of legal right to pirate.

          • I thought you said there is no point replying.

            I explained why it is extortion above. I will not bother to repeat myself.

          • Sorry, I’ve reread your posts I can spot many times you mention it is extortian and even blackmail. I fail to see one place you explained why you believe that it’s the case. Could you or some other helpful soul please copy the text as I cannot find it.
            Well your last post seemed to be a little more open to discussion.
            It would be nice to have a different business model for distribution. Many have been tried over the years with people crying how unfair they were, none really worked. Mobile gaming and ad supported free gaming is working to a degree but it’s not going to fund the next call of duty. Luckily titles like that sell in such quantities they make a profit no matter what.

          • Extortion is the act of extracting money or goods from someone through the threat of force. Sending someone a letter which says “pay us $500 or we’ll take you to court” (or whatever amount) is extortion. Especially if you don’t actually plan to take anybody to court (see the ACS Law case for an example of this: they don’t even have a litigator on hand)

            So they send out 9,000 letters. Maybe 500 people are scared enough to send in the $500. That’s $250,000 and they don’t even need to bother chasing the rest. Praying on the gullible and the frightened — is that the kind of business you want to associate with?

          • Well you pretty much described every legal letter there. Pay us what we believe you owe us or we will take you to court. Also I don’t think it’s a blind threat. If they go to the trouble of getting the supeonas to get the persons details I would expect them to take them to court.
            To be honest I would rather them than people who believe a crime isn’t a crime if you don’t get prosecuted.

          • What is your answer to it then? Just ignore it?
            Your arguement that it doesn’t stop people doing is true. People are discussing how to avoid detection more than anything. But at least for the time being it makes it some people stop and think that they may get called out on what they seem to think is their god given right to just take others IP.

          • I gave you my solution above. Unfortunately, it does require some business to change their business models, which it seems many are unwilling to do.

          • That’s the thing Dbremner, they don’t take them to court. Any resistance at all and they drop the suit because it is “no longer profitable”.

          • Maybe in the US but they have to sue to get costs covered. Are you sure they will do the same here where last I saw the loser had to cover costs last I saw? Or maybe just make an example of a few to get the piracy down. I don’t care how you want to spin it, I am not going to go, aww poor coptright violated threatened to be made accountable for their actions. I think if they don’t take them to court they should feel lucky

          • Actually, they are following exactly the recommendations of the Australian copyright council.
            Contact the infringer

            • a clear statement of what you require (for example, ceasing the infringing action, destruction of
            infringing copies and or payment of a stated sum of money);

            • a statement that further action may be taken if the demand(s) is not met within the specified
            time frame.

            Court action
            If the matter is not settled after a letter of demand has been sent, you will need to decide whether
            you wish to take the matter to court.

          • Have you read this article:

            This is a UK company (where the laws are quite similar to the laws here). They don’t even have a litigator, they just send out threatening letters to people — many of whom don’t even know what P2P is, let alone how to download a movie — and if they don’t get payment, try a few more letters before giving up. They scare enough people into paying up that it’s a profitable business.

            Do you think Movie Rights Group actually plan to take all 9,000 people to court? How long would that take? Do you think the courts would be happy with the idea of 9,000 separate copyright infringement lawsuits, each worth less than few hundred dollars?

            Or maybe just make an example of a few to get the piracy down

            Do you think those “few” who have been sued in the US for hundreds of thousands of dollars have been made enough of an example of that piracy has gone down? Of course not. Do you think the people who die on our roads every year is enough of a deterrent that young people have stopped speeding? If death is not enough deterrent for speeding, why would the possibility of a lawsuit be a deterrent for downloading movies?

          • ” Do you think the people who die on our roads every year is enough of a deterrent that young people have stopped speeding?”
            Very selective on that example. Funnily enough the thought of a fine or losing their license is a bigger deterent than losing their life.
            So, you want to stop enforcing speed limits and see how many people start speeding because they won’t get fined? I hope not, buggered if I would want to drive on roads with every P platter seeing if he could hit 200 past the local school.

        • Agree dude if we capture a movie with winfast or DVD recorder or the old VHS system use it for our own viewing at home and don’t upload or share it where’s the harm? I coulda got a ton of games etc downloaded of the net free of charge but do I? NO. I pay 100 bucks per hit to get the latest games and I’m happy to pay.

          • No harm at all, I haven’t heard anyone objecting to copying between media for your own use. In fact a lot of content providers are now helping people to do just that.
            I am sorry you have to pay $100 for the latest games. There has been a lot of blame around for that. I can tell you what the publisher sells it to the Australian distributors for. I have also seem what the retailers buy it from the distributors for. Look at those distributors if you want to find where a lot of the Australian padding is. Just one I looked at, latest release game from a publisher I worked as a developer with. Publisher sold to distributor at $43. EB staffed told me it cost them $80, had to see invoice to believe it. In the US the store chains are larger, do their own buying direct from the publisher, they don’t rely on these middle man importers padding their wallets.

  13. At the very least, I hope the company isn’t directly given the names and addresses of the internet users they accuse. As many have pointed out, false positives are a distinct possibility, there are compromised machines and low security wireless networks and other tenants, and such an accusation is incredibly difficult to disprove.

    Guilty or not, many people will see the futility of trying to defend themselves in court. Extortion is not cool.

    Regarding the topic, it’ll be interesting to see which ISPs cave in to demands before being absolutely legally required to.

  14. I guess when they legally have to
    and my ISP gives me the first warning notice
    I’ll just have to switch to a cheap 500 gig Unlimited 1Gbs Seed box .. and FTP it back to my self

  15. They have been threatening everyone in the pirate chain for the past 15 years. Same old story.

    When will these dinosaurs learn that legal recourse is not a practical option but changing the people in charge is the key. The industry needs major innovation… They can start with their outdated business models.

  16. Ahhh sounds like a case of the angry little Mini Foxie Terrier going after the big placid Rottweiler. It’ll just be another little 2 person company trying to talk big and make a name for itself as the latest crusader for movie companies and against anti-piracy.

    Look were the last groups that tried ended up, being laughed at and spending millions trying to take iiNet to task over it.

    American Law does not equal Australian law as these gooses will soon find out. Luckily Australia has better privacy protection against such clowns.

  17. I never even heard of this movie until now,
    Gonna google it and see what the fuss is all about.
    Are we sure this isn’t a PR job to advertise the movie? lmao
    Anyway I’m sure there are other place to get this movie without going to torrents, you know “safer” places that don’t keep your IP of what you download :)

    • Actually recording from TV to watch a program at a later time is perfectly legal. It is explicitly mention under the copyright act. What you aren’t allow to do though is record a whole pile of stuff and make your own DVD/Tape library.

  18. Hi guys,

    I’ve deleted a couple of comments from this thread due to people investigating the background of the people behind Movie Rights Group. I have to protect myself here so I can’t host this material on Delimiter until it’s more fully investigated. Reading between the lines … I hope you understand ;)



  19. Renai, regarding your deleting of certain posts. The information posted here is public information which I’m sure you can easily verify. Its in the public domain I’m not sure why its been deleted. I’m just hoping you will follow it up with another article.

Comments are closed.