Puffwagon Puff Gold Donating Members 16,012 Member For: 9y 11m 3d Gender: Male Location: South Australia Posted 23/10/18 12:36 PM Share Posted 23/10/18 12:36 PM I just read some of this for the past hour and a bit. Although there is plenty going on there, it seems pretty clear that a copyright holder can track you down and make you pay, based upon the judges comments. Reasons that seem likely that it didn't happen is due to the applicant either, not wanting to set a precedent for costs and perhaps less likely, the costs payable to the isp's for their discovery or indeed the entire court case. Of course there could be a multitude of other reasons. #dallasbuyersclub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adams355 Member 529 Member For: 7y 8m Gender: Male Location: Brisbane Posted 23/10/18 12:48 PM Share Posted 23/10/18 12:48 PM So, has their been a conviction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffwagon Puff Gold Donating Members 16,012 Member For: 9y 11m 3d Gender: Male Location: South Australia Posted 23/10/18 01:05 PM Share Posted 23/10/18 01:05 PM It wasn't a criminal matter in this instance. You can still get reamed pretty hard with a civil suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adams355 Member 529 Member For: 7y 8m Gender: Male Location: Brisbane Posted 23/10/18 01:08 PM Share Posted 23/10/18 01:08 PM Very good puff you must have learn't something. If it could of happened it would of by now. Its just a scare campaign now, just like vaping nicotine in QLD... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffwagon Puff Gold Donating Members 16,012 Member For: 9y 11m 3d Gender: Male Location: South Australia Posted 23/10/18 01:20 PM Share Posted 23/10/18 01:20 PM (edited) Haha I'm not as dumb as I look ay? Have a read of the feb 2015 hearing and then read the final judgment. That ain't no scare campaign mate. Those are real court documents. The aussie isp's were shut down in court and the only reason, from a legal standpoint, that it didn't go further, is the applicant let the self executing order to dismiss happen by not appearing within the time frame, for whatever reason. Edited 23/10/18 01:21 PM by Puffwagon A word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adams355 Member 529 Member For: 7y 8m Gender: Male Location: Brisbane Posted 23/10/18 01:31 PM Share Posted 23/10/18 01:31 PM Yea $$$ check out the second link https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/08/report-australian-pirates-are-about-to-be-sued-in-court/ There happy with th 95% block through ISP sites at the moment. Linking judgments now puff your a legend It might make you tired again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffwagon Puff Gold Donating Members 16,012 Member For: 9y 11m 3d Gender: Male Location: South Australia Posted 23/10/18 01:34 PM Share Posted 23/10/18 01:34 PM *you're 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adams355 Member 529 Member For: 7y 8m Gender: Male Location: Brisbane Posted 23/10/18 01:37 PM Share Posted 23/10/18 01:37 PM 7 hours ago, adams355 said: Ok all I'm saying is its not a criminal offence or even a civil one at this stage. Federal government blocking sites now. ISP's won't give out personal details. So, this was my second statement on the matter, is it wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffwagon Puff Gold Donating Members 16,012 Member For: 9y 11m 3d Gender: Male Location: South Australia Posted 23/10/18 01:57 PM Share Posted 23/10/18 01:57 PM I would agree if you added the word voluntarily to the last sentence. The court notes state clearly that the isp's would have to give out names and addresses but maybe not email addresses providing they meet certain conditions, mainly surrounding privacy and consumer protection laws. In that particular case they weren't met but certainly could have been. Also the fact that it can be brought up in court makes it a civil matter unless I'm mistaken and it's called something different? It can be presented before court, you can be sued and with sufficient evidence as already precidented, it's very likely that the odds aren't in the defendants favour. While I agree with you that your link does indeed show a scare campaign, the link I provided shows that they can follow through and more than likely win. I think that a scare campaign is cheaper and easier and that it's an appropriate first step. Tl;dr: I mostly agree but there is a chance of being sued for downloading even a few seconds of copy protected material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adams355 Member 529 Member For: 7y 8m Gender: Male Location: Brisbane Posted 23/10/18 02:18 PM Share Posted 23/10/18 02:18 PM (edited) There would have to be another full court process, so heaps of warning. DBC missed the deadline and are not making any further applications regarding the case. Civil case is outside of criminal law case where the State or Country prosecute an individual etc. Civil case can be person against person or company etc, there is also a lower burden of proof in a civil case which basically means if it looks like they probably did it it lol that's enough. Criminal is obviously beyond a reasonable doubt. You are making me tired now... Go to bed puff. Edited 23/10/18 02:19 PM by adams355 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now