Judge wants to see live BitTorrent demo

Judge wants to see live BitTorrent demo

Summary: Justice Cowdroy, presiding over the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) versus iiNet copyright infringement hearing, today said he wanted to see a live demonstration of how BitTorrent is used to download movies.

SHARE:

Justice Cowdroy, presiding over the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) versus iiNet copyright infringement hearing, today said he wanted to see a live demonstration of how BitTorrent is used to download movies.

Following a video presentation by AFACT's barrister QC Bannon of the group's investigator Nigel Carson downloading Warner Bros' movie Batman Begins, Cowdroy asked if he could be shown what other ISPs were facilitating file sharing.

"Can you show me, Mr Bannon, how many other internet providers are providing the same sorts of information? What other ones right now are doing this?" asked Justice Cowdroy, noting that on the list of evidence collected by Carson that iiNet had appeared four times.

While iiNet's initial request to include as evidence how other local ISPs had responded to AFACT's breach notifications was knocked back, Cowdroy today appeared interested in whether other local ISPs were providing similar connectivity to file-sharing clients as iiNet.

Bannon could not recall the names of other ISPs that its investigator had identified, and asked if Cowdroy could refer to a hard copy list which included the names of others identified. "I'd be interested to see this in real life," Cowdroy said.

"This is actually a video of what he did at the time, so it's not online now," Bannon explained, adding that it may in the future give a live demonstration in court.

"Well, we did contemplate actually going online for the purpose of this case and this is something we will consider doing," he said. "But for the purposes of the opening — there may be some controversy about. But it is interesting to see that ... as iiNet sits in this court room represented by its legal representatives that its clients are online accessing these films." The hearing is continuing this afternoon.

Day one of the hearing, which at the time of writing was in recess, has so far seen AFACT's barrister outline its claim that iiNet profits from customers that download copyrighted material and "sanctioned and approved" its customers' file-sharing efforts.

Outside the court, iiNet's managing director, Michael Malone, told media that he disputed AFACT's argument that it supported and profited from its customers downloading copyrighted material.

"We provide internet access. That's where we make our profit from. When people download, that's a cost to us. The more people download, the more it costs us," he added. "The evidence will show over the next few weeks that that is incorrect. Heavy download users make less money for iiNet."

Topics: Piracy, Government AU, Security, Telcos

Liam Tung

About Liam Tung

Liam Tung is an Australian business technology journalist living a few too many Swedish miles north of Stockholm for his liking. He gained a bachelors degree in economics and arts (cultural studies) at Sydney's Macquarie University, but hacked (without Norse or malicious code for that matter) his way into a career as an enterprise tech, security and telecommunications journalist with ZDNet Australia. These days Liam is a full time freelance technology journalist who writes for several publications.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

25 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • heh

    "how many other internet providers are providing the same sorts of information"

    internet providers are not providing batman begins nor any other sorts of information though... I wonder if they ague that point
    anonymous
  • Downloading a movie on the court network??

    Would this not be a breach of copyright to use the courts own network to facilitate this, what about all the intermediate ISP's etc which have routers that facilitate the connection to the illegal content, surely everyone in the chain is guilty of facilitating this breach, as they may be in breach of copyright as well without even knowing about it. If its bit torrent, what about all the providers of the content, some may be local in Australia and some overseas, is making a part of a digital download available illegal, even if that part that was downloaded is not readable in its current form, until the bit torrent client assembles the relevant bits.

    Sounds like difficult stuff for the court to decide and where the line in the sand gets drawn
    anonymous
  • Nope

    No, AFACT should be able to easily obtain written permission to download the file from the copywrite owner.

    I'd say that iiNet's team will have to work on alleviating the judges ignorance (not used as an insult, we can't expect everyone to have a thorough knowledge of IT, specifically P2P). The line "how many other ISP's are providing the same sort of information" demonstrates that. The ISP isn't providing pirated material, it's providing the ability to get to pirated material.

    Which is kind of like saying car manufacturers are killing people (or at least facilitating the killing) because drunk drivers get behind the wheel... It's an argument that can be made technically (if there was no car, there would be no drink driving and ergo no death) but it's based on an unreasonable premise.

    If you accept that shaky premise, then the people who make the modems are responsible, the people who own the copper that iiNet use to send their signals are responsible, the mining company that mined the copper ore is responsible. Of course, that premise is so ridiculous it wouldn't dignify a response apart from the fact that AFACT seems intent on pursuing it...
    anonymous
  • iiNet

    Nope: there still would be drinking people that get drunk but without cars could be "drunk drivers".

    Peer to peer is a software networking utility at layer 7 which iiNet does not provide and neither the content.

    Back to your car analogy, then let's sue the bottle shops for not asking the buyer if they have a car and plan to drink and drive later.
    Or better say, Peter buy a bottle of Laphroaig but give half to Michael, Peter stays home and Michaels go driving.

    I buy a DVD and copy and pass it to you but because it is not over TCP/IP protocol we cannot blame iiNet.............
    anonymous
  • OMG! They're screwed!

    I have tried for years to explain to my (Ex-) mother-in-law that her hotmail emails aren't stored on her computer. iiNet are going to need to employ a really good communication expert in order to educate the magistrate while all the AFACT's attorney has to do is keep the technical information at a minimum to get their dubious message across.

    It's time for the courts to appoint specialised judges to keep up with technology. If the judge still thinks the world is flat you aren't going to win your case on technical facts alone.
    anonymous
  • Dinosaur

    Sounds like the Judge is a Dinosour, IF they said the court is going to demostrate to him how to surf the internet he would probably ask what beach they are going to.
    anonymous
  • Pirating from Channel 7 & loving it...

    The irony is companies like Channel 7 are involved in this. Hasn't anyone considered they are providing a medium for people to copy said content to VCR?

    Thanks to Mr. Kerry Stokes, my VCR collection is continuing to expand.
    anonymous
  • VCR

    i appreciate what you're point but....

    vcr.... seriously... lolz
    anonymous
  • Get with the times

    DVD rand blu ray recorders are in fashion :D
    anonymous
  • What a moron.

    This judge has no idea. This is what is so dangerous in the information age. You have antiquated judges who have no idea about technology making judgment in a case that could have huge consequences for the entire country.
    anonymous
  • /facepalm

    Nope here, you understand that I'm actually condeming AFACT with my post "iiNet", not approving of their actions?
    anonymous
  • And this is how you download pr0n

    Anyone thinking what i'm thinking?

    The judge probably just want to know how he can download movies and pr0n at home so getting someone to show him in court is the best way as he can use the reason of "just needing more info"
    anonymous
  • Exactly what i was thinking...

    Next he'll ask where all the best warez sites are to get an antivirus program for his pc...
    anonymous
  • Case Proved???

    I think this judge is more cluey than you give him credit for: AFACT say that iiNet is allowing its clients to download various films; he then asks AFACT to show that only iiNet is allowing this practice. I think AFACT would have a bit of difficulty here :-))
    anonymous
  • Justice Cowdroy is building his own case

    Before everyone heaps manure on Justice Cowdroy, they need to realise how the system works. At the end of the hearing, the judge will need to hand down a verdict. This verdict must make sense - it must be based on sound reasoning and on the evidence presented. Clearly Cowdroy has given this some thought and wants to see evidence that will allow him to not only make an informed decision but also provide the basis on which the verdict can stand.

    Court cases are more like a game of chess with three players, rather than a yes/no argument between the disputing parties.
    anonymous
  • *facepalm*

    "how many other internet providers are providing the same sorts of information"

    ...see this is why we dont let old people use computers...
    anonymous
  • Re: Case Proved

    I agree, the judge is probably more cluey than people are giving him credit for. He must make sure all processes are followed and all evidence is viewed to ensure that whatever his verdict, it holds.

    "he then asks AFACT to show that only iiNet is allowing this practice"

    I'm not sure that this comes into it. The other companies are not on trial, iiNet is. If I commit a crime, proving that other people have committed same crime does not make me any less guilty.
    anonymous
  • Re: Case Proved

    You slightly misquote the article in a critical way. He asked what ISPs provided the information, not allowed the practice.

    He also asked what others were doing, in the context these others being ISPs.

    If he wasn't misquoted then this is a clear demonstration of ignorance. The car analogy above is correct.

    Another analogy would be the Post Office transporting illegal material, which happens every day.
    anonymous
  • I didn't read it as ignorant

    "Can you show me, Mr Bannon, how many other internet providers are providing the same sorts of information? What other ones right now are doing this?" asked Justice Cowdroy,

    To me, this is the crux of the case.

    AFACT are charging iiNet with enabling and profiting from illegal downloading.

    If it is demonstrable that, in fact, iiNet is no more nor less of an enabler than any other ISP, then is the case not headed for failure for AFACT?

    iiNet do not have to prove that 'others are also committing a crime', they have to prove that they are not active piracy enablers.

    As childish as it may sound "everyone else does it, too" seems to be a good defence that iiNet do not profit from piracy, unless the whole industry does
    anonymous
  • It's the content owners..

    I can't believe that iinet will allow the court to remain ignorant of P2P networking and as stated by anon, it's layer 7 protocol where ISPs supply a layer 2/3 service.

    Surely the responsibility lies with the content owner. If I don't lock my car and it's stolen, it's my fault and I can't claim insurance. What is the difference?
    anonymous