Sydney man faces charges over Simpsons boot-legging
News.com.au reports that a Sydney man is facing criminal charges because he allegedly made a "boot-leg" recording of the Simpsons movie using a mobile phone, and then uploaded it to "a US global streaming website" - whatever that means. I'm guessing they're referring to Bittorrent or some other P2P technology; "youtube" having entered the popular lexicon, if the bootleg had been put on youtube, I imagine they would have just said so.
The Australian Federal Police are said to have confirmed that they searched the man's house "in relation to allegations of criminal breaches of intellectual property law." The article reports that computer equipment was siezed and that the man faces "charges related to distributing and infringing copyright material and possessing a device for doing so."
This article raises a number of interesting issues...
How did AFACT (the "Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft") and/or the police identify this individual as the alleged uploader? Even if they had his IP address, it could have been anyone in his household or with access to his computer that allegedly uploaded the bootleg copy.
Why are the "infringement notice" provisions that were introduced last year not being used in this case? It could be that the "guidelines" for enforcement of those provisions have not yet been made (or, at least, published), but I'm guessing that AFACT and the relevant copyright holders want to throw the proverbial book at this individual. An infringement notice would only allow for a fine of $1320 and forfeiture of the hardware involved in the infringement. By using the indictable offence provisions, the maximum penalty is 5 years jail, or a fine of $60,500, or both.
Given that AFACT appear to be scapegoating this individual as being responsible for all online "piracy" of the Simpsons movie, I imagine that they will be pushing for serious jail time. It will be interesting to see if there is a repeat of the events in the "mp3wmaland" case, a criminal prosecution of three university students in Sydney in 2003. In that case, counsel representing the copyright holders sought to make submissions on sentencing, and to recover the costs of their privately-conducted investigation from the defendants - and were soundly rebuffed by the court. The defendants in that case received significant -- but suspended -- jail terms, leading the then-head of MIPI ("Music Industry Piracy Investigations") Michael Speck to describe the judgment as "banana republic stuff".
It is also interesting that (if the news.com.au article is correct), the individual under investigation faces an additional charge for possessing a "device". The untested device provisions in s 132AL of the Copyright Act 1968 were controversial when introduced, and are farcically over-broad. I find it bizarre that possession of a mobile phone with intent to use it to infringe copyright should be a criminal offence punishable by 5 years imprisonment. It's not as though it was equipment designed specifically for producing infringing copies. Section 132AL will no doubt feel my wrath in a future posting.
I'll be watching this case with interest.
[Update: The Sydney Morning Herald now has a story on this issue, and AFACT have a press release [.doc file] online.]
The Australian Federal Police are said to have confirmed that they searched the man's house "in relation to allegations of criminal breaches of intellectual property law." The article reports that computer equipment was siezed and that the man faces "charges related to distributing and infringing copyright material and possessing a device for doing so."
This article raises a number of interesting issues...
How did AFACT (the "Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft") and/or the police identify this individual as the alleged uploader? Even if they had his IP address, it could have been anyone in his household or with access to his computer that allegedly uploaded the bootleg copy.
Why are the "infringement notice" provisions that were introduced last year not being used in this case? It could be that the "guidelines" for enforcement of those provisions have not yet been made (or, at least, published), but I'm guessing that AFACT and the relevant copyright holders want to throw the proverbial book at this individual. An infringement notice would only allow for a fine of $1320 and forfeiture of the hardware involved in the infringement. By using the indictable offence provisions, the maximum penalty is 5 years jail, or a fine of $60,500, or both.
Given that AFACT appear to be scapegoating this individual as being responsible for all online "piracy" of the Simpsons movie, I imagine that they will be pushing for serious jail time. It will be interesting to see if there is a repeat of the events in the "mp3wmaland" case, a criminal prosecution of three university students in Sydney in 2003. In that case, counsel representing the copyright holders sought to make submissions on sentencing, and to recover the costs of their privately-conducted investigation from the defendants - and were soundly rebuffed by the court. The defendants in that case received significant -- but suspended -- jail terms, leading the then-head of MIPI ("Music Industry Piracy Investigations") Michael Speck to describe the judgment as "banana republic stuff".
It is also interesting that (if the news.com.au article is correct), the individual under investigation faces an additional charge for possessing a "device". The untested device provisions in s 132AL of the Copyright Act 1968 were controversial when introduced, and are farcically over-broad. I find it bizarre that possession of a mobile phone with intent to use it to infringe copyright should be a criminal offence punishable by 5 years imprisonment. It's not as though it was equipment designed specifically for producing infringing copies. Section 132AL will no doubt feel my wrath in a future posting.
I'll be watching this case with interest.
[Update: The Sydney Morning Herald now has a story on this issue, and AFACT have a press release [.doc file] online.]
Leave a comment