▲ 520 ▼ Piracy advice (feddit.nl) submitted 2 years ago by moe90@feddit.nl to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Scroll down and there's a section about Australia on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Buyers_Club Basically, they fucked it up so bad in Aus no one's ever tried again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] psud@aussie.zone 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) That says their error was trying American threats "we got you dead to rights, tell us your income and we'll tell you how much to pay our we'll sue for punitive damages" Which isn't legal in Australia. They would have been ok if they had asked to send a letter saying "stop it or pay us a reasonable amount for one person viewing the film once" but of course actual damages aren't enough for film companies They were too greedy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 years ago Yeah basically. But part of why no one has tried again is because the judge made it very clear he wasn't going to just roll over and let them pull their BS. Including setting a bond of $600k for them to even try litigating it. Another part of it is that ISPs used to hand out IP addresses and PII in response to requests from media companies. This was found to be in breach of privacy laws and now those companies would have to apply for court orders, proving malfeasance, to get that information. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] psud@aussie.zone 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) That says their error was trying American threats "we got you dead to rights, tell us your income and we'll tell you how much to pay our we'll sue for punitive damages" Which isn't legal in Australia. They would have been ok if they had asked to send a letter saying "stop it or pay us a reasonable amount for one person viewing the film once" but of course actual damages aren't enough for film companies They were too greedy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 years ago Yeah basically. But part of why no one has tried again is because the judge made it very clear he wasn't going to just roll over and let them pull their BS. Including setting a bond of $600k for them to even try litigating it. Another part of it is that ISPs used to hand out IP addresses and PII in response to requests from media companies. This was found to be in breach of privacy laws and now those companies would have to apply for court orders, proving malfeasance, to get that information. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 years ago Yeah basically. But part of why no one has tried again is because the judge made it very clear he wasn't going to just roll over and let them pull their BS. Including setting a bond of $600k for them to even try litigating it. Another part of it is that ISPs used to hand out IP addresses and PII in response to requests from media companies. This was found to be in breach of privacy laws and now those companies would have to apply for court orders, proving malfeasance, to get that information. permalink fedilink source parent
