Australians should be prepared for threatening letters demanding they “pay up or else” for allegedly downloading movies online, following the Federal Court’s judgment in Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Ltd. The judgment, handed down this afternoon, means that Australians may soon be the target of “speculative invoicing” — sending letters that threaten legal action unless the alleged downloader pays a settlement figure.
Originally the respondent, iiNet, refused to hand over its customers’ details, believing they would be used as part of speculative invoicing, and its refusal prompted the litigation[1]. Although Justice Perram, in giving the judgment, reportedly stated that the letters will need to be cleared by the Court prior to issue[2], the Pirate Party remains concerned that this sets a dangerous precedent.
Pirate Party Secretary Daniel Judge commented: “This practice has been criticised strongly in the United Kingdom[3], and is predatory to say the least. Like scams, speculative invoicing targets thousands of people and extorts payment from the most vulnerable. In the UK, the accuracy of this approach in targeting people who actually infringed copyright has been criticised. Innocent users have been targeted as a result of the indiscriminate approach[4][5], and even copyright holder representatives have condemned speculative invoicing[6].”
“Speculative invoicing is a bullying tactic. Movie studios know that most people will not be able to afford to challenge these allegations in court, so they offer a settlement that in moderate numbers can be quite lucrative. In the United States, settlement figures have been reported as around $5000 — which many people choose to pay even if they’re innocent[7].”
“This decision paves the way for speculative invoicing in Australia, and we may soon see indiscriminate letters demanding Internet users ‘pay up or else’ being issued soon as other copyright holders and their representatives jump on the bandwagon.”
This judgment follows other developments relating to online copyright infringement in Australia. The Federal Government has compelled the Communications Alliance to draft an industry code that will introduce a “graduated response” regime in Australia — a series of education and warning notices that will be sent to alleged infringers, and may culminate in widespread legal action. Legislation has also been introduced that will allow copyright holders to obtain injunctions that require Internet service providers to “disable access” to “online locations.”
“Although other developments are enormously concerning, we now have a method of targeting alleged infringers that will most certainly be abused here, just as it has been overseas,” Mr Judge concluded. “The Pirate Party encourages iiNet and other ISPs involved to appeal this decision.”
[1] http://blog.iinet.net.au/not-our-kind-of-club/
[2] http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/dallas-buyers-club-slays-iinet-in-landmark-piracy-case-20150407-1mey38.html
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/jan/27/illegal-file-sharing-acslaw
[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8129261.stm
[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8481790.stm
[6] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8483482.stm
[7] http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Movie-Studio-Targets-Consumers-For-Illegal-Downloads-257608961.html
So movie companies shouldn’t be expecting payment for their work due to the possibility of people being scammed by a third party.
I’m sure there’s some sort of twisted logic there.
Maybe if it was reasonable rather than retardedly excessive it wouldn’t be an issue. If it was $20 per movie or something like it would be to buy on DVD then it would be paid up. $5000 based on the suspicion that you have illegally downloaded something is ridiculous.
i agree, esp if say your child/friend/relative was using “your” internet to download said movie… id be happy to pay the 20$ to cover the cost of their deeds. If they were asking for 5k$.. the letter would just go in the bin being considered daylight robbery.
The only twisted logic here is the assumption that they will send letters to the right people. Innocent parties are not invulnerable and could feel obligated to pay and powerless to fight. It is not just to sacrifice some of the innocent in order to apprehend the guilty and the law should strive with great vigour to prevent this.