In the ongoing copyright battle between Dallas Buyers Club LLC and iiNet Limited, an end is now in sight. In May 2015, the Federal Court of Australia handed down a judgment, setting out the parameters for copyright owners to bring an action against illegal downloaders.

Pirates Ahoy

Dallas Buyers Club (DBC), the copyright owners, were granted preliminary discovery of 4762 ISP account holders who had allegedly infringed copyright by illegally downloading the film using BitTorrent. DBC employed Maverickeye UG as “pirate hunters” to identify which IP addresses used the file-sharing technology BitTorrent – users, take note to clear your browser history!

Despite making a finding for preliminary discovery, Justice Perram stayed proceedings until DBC provided details of how they were going to contact and enforce their right against infringers. The stay of proceedings was mainly to avoid any occurrences of speculative invoicing – a technique commonly employed by larger companies to bully someone into paying funds. For example, DBC could not request an unreasonable sum of money, and then threaten legal action in the event the infringer failed to pay. Attached to this stay was a conditional bond for $60,000 to attain personal information from ISPs.

In August 2015, Dallas Buyers Club responded and stated by way of letter that they would seek damages for the following:

  • The cost of a single copy of the film, had it been purchased;
  • A claim for a license fee for the infringers distribution of the film;
  • A claim for additional damages under s 115(4) of the Act, depending on how many copies of other copyrighted works the infringer had downloaded; and
  • A claim for a contribution towards the cost of obtaining user details.

The draft letters provided to Justice Perram avoided any mention of the amounts owing – DBC said they would discuss this with the infringer via telephone conversation. The letter would only notify them of their infringement.

This tactic implicitly reveals speculative invoicing, going directly against Justice Perrams’s previous orders relating to the stay of proceedings. Furthermore, Justice Perram found the claim for the license fee impermissible on merit as it doesn’t recognise the plethora of ways a person may see the film legitimately, be that one may rent, buy or go to the cinemas. His Honour also found the claim for additional damages to be an imprudent claim because you cannot permit recourse to other acts of copyright infringement.

Justice Perram, unimpressed with the potential misuse of personal information, rejected both claims for damages and increased the bond to $600,000. This is a groundbreaking response because it allows a court to supervise the use of information made available in preliminary discovery.

In another attempt, DBC returned stating they would only seek payment of the original license fee and damages for its court costs. Unsurprisingly, Perram held the request was too onerous.

End In Sight?

Justice Perram following DBC’s continuous attempts to prolong the court process, stated that unless DBC finalises the most recent proceedings by 11 February 2016, the proceedings will be dismissed entirely.

Future of Copyright Infringement

DBC has demonstrated that when attempting to tackle online infringement, a range of measures are needed. After all, are all ISP account holders necessarily the people that infringed copyright?

Two days after the DBC hearing in April, the Communications Alliance published the Copyright Notice Scheme (the Scheme) for public comment. The Scheme, instituted as a type of “soft law” in order to dissuade infringers from engaging in copyright infringement also sets out how ISPs will accept notices from Rights Holders and endeavour to notify ISP Account Holders (in a prescribed form). 

The Scheme is considered a means for complimenting the website blocking injunctions provided for by the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015. And so arises another uncertainty – website blocking injunctions. They have been likened to whack-a-moles, as one is blocked another pops up using a different domain name.

The Scheme’s effectiveness is questionable. However, it entreats ISPs and rights holders to develop a voluntary code under Pt 6 of the Telecommunications Act and attempts to ensure ISPs take reasonable steps to deter infringement.

We’ve also seen the emergence of cheaper streaming services into the online marketplace. Where sites like Netflix attempt to reduce the rates of online infringement by providing users with competitive pricing and immediate access to the content, perhaps DBC ought to consider a business, rather than a legal solution.


What do you think? Tag us on Twitter @legalvision_au and let us know or ask our IT lawyers.

COVID-19 Business Survey
LegalVision is conducting a survey on the impact of COVID-19 for businesses across Australia. The survey takes 2 minutes to complete and all responses are anonymous. We would appreciate your input. Take the survey now.

About LegalVision: LegalVision is a tech-driven, full-service commercial law firm that uses technology to deliver a faster, better quality and more cost-effective client experience.

The majority of our clients are LVConnect members. By becoming a member, you can stay ahead of legal issues while staying on top of costs. For just $199 per month, membership unlocks unlimited lawyer consultations, faster turnaround times, free legal templates and members-only discounts.

Learn more about LVConnect

Lachlan McKnight
Need Legal Help? Get a Free Fixed-Fee Quote

If you would like to receive a free fixed-fee quote or get in touch with our team, fill out the form below.

  • By submitting this form, you agree to receive emails from LegalVision and can unsubscribe at any time. See our full Privacy Policy.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Our Awards
  • 2019 Top 25 Startups - LinkedIn 2019 Top 25 Startups - LinkedIn
  • 2019 NewLaw Firm of the Year - Australian Law Awards 2019 NewLaw Firm of the Year - Australian Law Awards
  • 2020 Fastest Growing Law Firm - Financial Times APAC 500 2020 Fastest Growing Law Firm - Financial Times APAC 500
  • 2020 AFR Fast 100 List - Australian Financial Review 2020 AFR Fast 100 List - Australian Financial Review
  • 2020 Law Firm of the Year Finalist - Australasian Law Awards 2020 Law Firm of the Year Finalist - Australasian Law Awards
  • Most Innovative Law Firm - 2019 Australasian Lawyer 2019 Most Innovative Firm - Australasian Lawyer
Privacy Policy Snapshot

We collect and store information about you. Let us explain why we do this.

What information do you collect?

We collect a range of data about you, including your contact details, legal issues and data on how you use our website.

How do you collect information?

We collect information over the phone, by email and through our website.

What do you do with this information?

We store and use your information to deliver you better legal services. This mostly involves communicating with you, marketing to you and occasionally sharing your information with our partners.

How do I contact you?

You can always see what data you’ve stored with us.

Questions, comments or complaints? Reach out on 1300 544 755 or email us at

View Privacy Policy