Dallas Buyers Club Throws In The Towel On iiNet Piracy Case

It's finally over. For a year and a half, lawyers for Dallas Buyers Club have been fighting iiNet to access the details of over 4,000 of its customers that had allegedly committed copyright infringement — pirating the 2013 Matthew McConaughey film. Now it has been confirmed that the case has finally come to an end, with DBC LLC throwing in the towel.

Late last year the Federal Court dismissed the case entirely, with the option of an appeal by 11 February this year if DBC LLLC were able to abide by agreed conditions in regards to how they would be communicating with iiNet customers.

DBC LLC was restricted from viewing the customer details of iiNet account holders, which it was granted access to, until it paid a substantial bond and could convince the court it wouldn't start sending the alleged pirates high bills for damages.

Time is now up, and DBC LLC will not be making any further applications regarding the case, managing partner of DBC LLC law firm Marque Lawyers Michael Bradley has confirmed to iTnews.

"It's certainly a disappointing outcome for them. It doesn't do anything to mitigate the infringement that's going on - it's not a particularly satisfactory outcome from that point of view," he said.

During the course of the case, the scope of what DBC sought to claim was gradually reduced.

Originally DBC wanted the cost of the film, plus a fee for each individual who had viewed, "punitive damages" based on the volume of copyrighted works that weren't Dallas Buyers Club each individual had downloaded, and costs incurred to gain access to each individual's details.

The claim was ultimately reduced to just the cost of the film, a single "reasonable" license fee, and court costs.

The license fee became the sticking point, though, with DBC LLC unable to confirm what it would consider "reasonable".


Comments

    DBC LLC... Hate how these piss weak companies hide behind other names so their keywords don't show up in a negative light. Hi Nicolas Chartier of Voltage Pictures.

    Tempted to download film tonight and leave it seeding in celebration.

    Just proves they were trying to do it for a profit, and didn't care that it was punitive to individuals. Lawyers are scum.

      +1
      Perhaps our courts were right when they suspected that they were trying to setup a new revenue stream based on intimidation.

      I wonder how the TPP will change this outcome in the near future?

    Of course they have. After all, what's the point of pursuing justice if you can't strong-arm people into near-criminally unreasonable restitution, and only end up with a fair resolution?

    These fuckers were never interested in fairness. They wanted to extort and punish and send a threatening message. Thank God we had someone with some sanity in charge who saw through their bullshit, called them on it, and generally wasn't prepared to let them exploit the system.

    If I ever meet Nye Perram, he can take up my offer to buy him a drink.

    Last edited 11/02/16 11:04 am

    A good victory, these companies need to learn that if they ask for a reasonable amount (based on what the movie costs, like $25 max) they might start winning!

    Now to pirate everything ever made by Voltage pictures. Not because I want to watch any of them... Just because they're a bunch of d*cks

    Punitive damages. Dallas Buyers Club: Budget $5 million, Box office $55.2 million

    Strangely enough, if they'd been REASONABLE from the outset, they probably would have had a win. Greed + Stupidity = No Win.

    If I was DBC I think suing their lawyers might get a better payoff: the legal advice they were given caused them to lose. When a judge asks for a letter outlining what they want from pirates and then the lawyers draft a vague, non-specific letter it shows contempt of the legal system. If they'd done what was asked by a judge who was prepared to be reasonable, they would have had a different outcome.

    A very good win for the Australian people.

    This may have been covered in another article (it's been going on for long enough), but what about all the other ISPs? Did they just hand over the names, addresses and phone numbers of their customers simply because someone asked? Is there any illegality in this?

      DBC targetted iiNet as a "test case". They didn't approach other ISPs.
      Just like AFACT targetted iiNet years ago over torrents in general - and also lost. It could be suggested that there was a bit of sour grapes involved with trying to ping iiNet again.

      The studios want to send a message, but don't want to take on the bigger Telcos (Telstra and Optus) and their huge warchests and high paid lawyers. So they target a high profile, but still small-ish ISP...

      The studios were hoping to establish a precedent, and wasted their chance by being greedy.
      They actually won their case, and were granted the right to get torrenter's details - on the proviso that they not extort people... "reasonable" fees were never provided to the court and rightly the judge threw it out.

    Yes and they didn't show that anyone actually downloaded their video. They just said here's a list of IPs and here's the videos that were being torrented

    Refuse to watch the movie "on principle". When the inevitable sequel comes out, I will refuse to watch that to.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now