Dallas Buyers Club pirates will remain anonymous following court ruling

Dallas Buyers Club pirates will remain anonymous following court ruling
Earlier this year, the backers of the critical hit Dallas Buyers Club won the right to obtain the names and addresses of 4700 John/Jane Does that they believe had downloaded and shared unauthorized copies of the film.

The individuals were all users of Australian ISPs iiNet, Dodo, Internode, Amnet Broadband, Adam Internet and Wideband Networks.



Justice Nye Perram has denied the claim from Dallas Buyers Club LLC (DBC LLC), and will not lift the temporary stay without the company changing its demands. DBC LLC is trying to charge thousands of dollars in licensing fees to everyone who allegedly shared the film, but the Judge said that demand is "so surreal as not to be taken seriously. If such a claim were made in a proceeding for copyright infringement in this Court I am satisfied that it would be dismissed summarily without trial ... as a case having no reasonable prospects of success."

Smartly, Justice Jerram also said that pirates should only be required to pay back the "equivalent cost of renting the film on iTunes and the costs DBC incurred in finding the name" of each pirate.

Source:
SMH


Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 17 Aug 2015 23:11
Tags
piracy Dallas Buyers Club
Advertisement - News comments available below the ad
  • 8 comments
  • blaster4

    So finally we find that there actually IS a judge who will not let himself be bamboozled by the movie industry. Well, who would have thought!

    18.8.2015 00:53 #1

  • harhumph

    I say we all buy that judge a beer on us!!

    18.8.2015 12:27 #2

  • doowop72

    Quote: trying to charge thousands of dollars in licensing fees Bwahahahhaahah...

    18.8.2015 23:55 #3

  • Jemborg

    Originally posted by blaster4: So finally we find that there actually IS a judge who will not let himself be bamboozled by the movie industry. Well, who would have thought! Not only that but it's the highest court in the land. DBC LLC was told NOT to engage in speculative invoicing but still they wanted to send those accused a vague letter asking them to phone "someone" and discuss (self-incriminate) some unspecific amount and tell them of all the other (unrelated) downloads they engaged in to boot. So they'd been ordered now to pay a $600,000 bond which they will forfeit if they try anything funny.




    ________________________________________________________________

    Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


    DSE VZ300-
    Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

    19.8.2015 14:56 #4

  • treyjazz

    This is how all judges should treat outrageous racketeering by studios. They almost seem to want people to pirate so they can increase the profits/decrease the losses from the titles by (ab)using the legal systems into forcing arbritrary amounts that they believe they lost. In this case it is at least a 300% markup had those people even cared to waste the money to rent it. If only American, etc. judges had the brain capacity to do this.

    21.8.2015 00:20 #5

  • Jemborg

    Originally posted by treyjazz: This is how all judges should treat outrageous racketeering by studios. They almost seem to want people to pirate so they can increase the profits/decrease the losses from the titles by (ab)using the legal systems into forcing arbritrary amounts that they believe they lost. In this case it is at least a 300% markup had those people even cared to waste the money to rent it. If only American, etc. judges had the brain capacity to do this. It's not only the judge. The ISPs involved banded together to get really good lawyers to defend their subscribers from these unabashed opportunists. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've never had the impression that American or UK or any other country's ISPs have done the same for their customers. Maybe it's circumstances I don't know. In fact, TPG, an American company in Oz, seems dead keen on dobbing in it's clients for their 'transgressions'.

    Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


    DSE VZ300-
    Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

    23.8.2015 09:39 #6

  • qazwiz

    Originally posted by Jemborg: ...
    ..... it's the highest court in the land. DBC LLC was told NOT to engage in speculative invoicing but still they wanted to send those accused a vague letter asking them to phone "someone" and discuss (self-incriminate) some unspecific amount and tell them of all the other (unrelated) downloads they engaged in to boot. So they'd been ordered now to pay a $600,000 bond which they will forfeit if they try anything funny.
    thank you for the info clarification.... nice to know but I wonder if the bond isn't a bit on the low side?

    I cannot find it ATM but I'm sure i just read in another recent article that $6,000 was being asked (as settlement? perhaps?) MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT CASE

    if so, then in theory, if in violation of the order they settle with 101 people they would be ahead of the game. and with estimates that 25% - 75% settle just so they don't have to pay a lawyer a retainer (which could easily be in the $5,000 - $10,000 range) one doesn't need to be a math genius to see that even with just 1,000 names to mail a letter to, it would easily turn over triple the bond netting a cool Million.
    ( and didn't i hear something about 47,000 people being accused somewhere? again, it was another case for sure, but if these jerks have access to a comparable pool of suckers to intimidate the suggested payout of $70 MILLION dwarfs that puny "Half-Million" bond)

    qazwiz is qazwiz everywhere. If you see me say HI!

    24.8.2015 00:36 #7

  • qazwiz

    Originally posted by Jemborg: ...
    It's not only the judge. The ISPs involved banded together to get really good lawyers to defend their subscribers from these unabashed opportunists. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've never had the impression that American or UK or any other country's ISPs have done the same for their customers. Maybe it's circumstances I don't know. In fact, TPG, an American company in Oz, seems dead keen on dobbing in it's clients for their 'transgressions'.
    while I agree with your sentiment, and I am one of those who, while having no proof, think that USA ISPs are in secret helping the lawyers shaft their customers, we need to step back on accusations of the ISPs NOT GETTING TOGETHER, because with USA laws at their current state, if they tried to help their customers that way the USA RICO laws (anti racketeering) could flip on them so if they were cleared of attempting monopolistic acts in their contact with the competition (other ISPs) they could still be accused of racketeering in ganging up on "those poor little lawyers" "just doing their jobs" (trying to take away their internet clients)

    qazwiz is qazwiz everywhere. If you see me say HI!

    24.8.2015 00:51 #8

© 2023 AfterDawn Oy

Hosted by
Powered by UpCloud