Dallas Buyers Club No 5
Perram J has rejected Dallas Buyers Club’s latest attempt to get permission to send those letters of demand out.
Last time out, Perram J said DBC could get the names and addresses of the 4726 “downloaders”[1] only if it gave undertakings to use the information for the purposes of resolving its infringement allegations. limited the demands for compensation to the retail price of a download and some part of the unrecovered costs of detection and put up a bond of $600,000.
This time round, DBC wanted to claim monetary compensation on a different basis, including additional damages under s 115(4) and restrict the bond to $60,000 as it was only seeking release of details of about 10% of the “downloaders”. It also did not offer up the undertakings.
Perram J told them, no sale; they had their shot at what they wanted in the previous hearing(s). His Honour gave them until 11 February 2016 to comply with his previous orders or he would dismiss the application.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited (No. 5) [2015] FCA 1437
- By which I really mean the account holders whose accounts the ISPs’ records showed were using the IP addresses at the time of the alleged infringements. ?
Dallas Buyers Club No 5 Read More »
