IINET Dallas Buyers Club case study: A

Stakeholder Analysis
Prepared for:
Mr. Satend Nandan
Lecturer
Department of International Business and Asian Studies, Griffith University
Executive Summary

The report examines the case study of Dallas Buyers Club LLC and iiNET published in various Australian
newspapers. Dallas Buyers Club is the popular life story film produced by Voltage Pictures in Hollywood.
IiNET is one of the most popular and the second largest internet service providers in Australia.

Dallas Buyers Club filed a case against iiNET and other five internet service providers (namely, Internode
Pty Ltd, Amnet Broadband Pty Ltd, Dodo Services Pty Ltd, Adam Internet Pty Ltd and Wideband
Networks Pty Ltd) in the Australian Federal Court. Dallas Buyers Club claimed that the customers of these
internet service providers downloaded the film illegally before the film released. This company inquired
the detailed information of 4726 customers of IINET and other ISPs who caught in illegal film
downloading and insisted on paying financial reimbursement. However, this technique worked
successfully in other sovereignties but failed against Australian Government. The main aim of this report
is to analyse stakeholders involved in this case study.

Table of Contents

7118IBA 2 s5064792
Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................2
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................4
Policy Problems.......................................................................................................................................4
Technical..............................................................................................................................................5
Financial...............................................................................................................................................5
Legal....................................................................................................................................................5
Social...................................................................................................................................................6
Stakeholder Analysis....................................................................................................................................6
Defining Stakeholders..............................................................................................................................6
Who are stakeholders?............................................................................................................................6
Dallas Buyers Club LLC and Voltage Pictures........................................................................................6
Internet Service Provides.....................................................................................................................7
The Australian Federal Court...............................................................................................................8
Website Owners..................................................................................................................................9
Internet Users......................................................................................................................................9
Media Distributors.............................................................................................................................10
Conclusions................................................................................................................................................11
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................12
Academic References and Journals........................................................................................................12
Web Pages.............................................................................................................................................13
Appendix...................................................................................................................................................15
A. General List of Stakeholder................................................................................................................15
B. Chronicle order of Stakeholder Definitions........................................................................................16
C. Mr. Michael Wickstrom’s Affidavit.....................................................................................................17
D. Draft Letter Submitted by DBC LLC....................................................................................................17
E. Telephonic Script Submitted by DBC LLC............................................................................................17
F. Case Summary in Chronological order...............................................................................................18

7118IBA 3 s5064792
Introduction

Voltage Pictures, the production company of the movie Dallas Buyers Club has the original copyrights of
the movie. As per the Copyright Act, no one can illegally download a copy of any movie from an internet
without permission. The company filed a case against iiNET and other internet service providers because
the company suspected that 4726 customers of these ISPs unlawfully downloaded the movie from Bit
Torrent without having its copyright and before its releasing date. The case was filed in Australian
Federal Court. The applicants affirmed that users breach the low of Copyright Act 1968. The right holders
do not have any idea of end-users who did this infringement. However, the applicants only have IP
addresses of users who illegitimately downloaded the movie. The Voltage Pictures asked detailed contact
information of 4726 customers from these ISPs (Ramali, 2015).

The internet service providers have a choice to take an impartial position and inform the court that, “The
dispute is between the Voltage Pictures and the users who downloaded the movie illegally.” Instead of
this, iiNET decided to oppose the court application filed by the copyrights holders (Moon, 2014). iiNet’s
chief officer, Steve Dalby said that their users were inequitably selected to get their money back without
involving court procedures (Dalby, 2017).

Justice Perram, an Australian Federal judge, announced that ISPs must give end-users' contact details
according to the IP addresses. Later on, he declined this application because Australian Federal Court
discovered that the rights holders demanded other details rather than solely contact details like salary
and charges of other downloaded movies. In addition to this, they were demanding penal damages,
which is against the law of Australia to provide such information. After that, justice Perram offered one
stipulation that the rights holders had to pay $600,000 AUD as a bond to get the details of end-users
stated in the application by 11 February 2016. If they asked any non-stated information, then they were
going to lose the bond amount (Turner, 20115).

On 10 February 2016, Voltage Pictures had decided not to charge any further application on this issue. At
last, the Australian Federal Court discharged this case. Refer F. Case Summary in Chronological order
(Appendix F) for the case summery in the chronological order.

Policy Problems
According to Bankes, “for a successful and effective result of policy in an adaptive and complex world,
policies will have to be adaptive themselves” (Bankes, 2002).

The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) policy in Australia reinforced the anti-piracy law.
According to this law, no one can illegally use or download the work which is copyrighted by someone
else, without their permission or without making the required payment. In short, it restricts breach of
copyright law by blocking sites which provide access to rights holder’s stuff for free. For example, the
sites like KickAssTorrents and The Pirate Bay (Borella, 2016).

The key supporters of ‘The Copyright Amendment Act’ are as follows (Grubb, 2015):

 A main DVD and film cinema and distribution company, Village Roadshow.

7118IBA 4 s5064792
  The CEO of the Australian Home Entertainment Distributors Association, Simon Bush.
 Richard Freudenstein, a chief executive of Foxtel (Australian cable television providers)
 General Manager of Music Rights Australia Pty Ltd, Vanessa Hutley
 The Australian Government

The objectors of ‘The Copyright Amendment Act’ are as follows (Thomas, 2015):

 The Australian Greens – a political party

 A former professor, Dr. Matthew Rimmer, at the ANU College of Law
 Liberal Democratic Party
 Internet Users

The above lists of supporters and objectors are not comprehensive for dispute of these issues. The
following sections discuss the isolated impediment of anti-piracy policy with detailed listings.

Technical
 Due to ‘The Copyright Amendment Act’, if users are found to do download unlawfully, then ISPs
would be required sending Copyright violation notice to the users and apply required filters to
block websites which were used for illegitimate downloading. In consequences, Internet
Filtration reduces the performance of websites like Netflix, YouTube which consumes a large
amount of bandwidth.
 The erudite internet users use software like VPN (Virtual Private Network) and Proxy Servers
which can be used to circumvent ISP filter.
 There is one question which is still unaddressed. Is IPS filtering 100% efficient (Thomas, 2015)?

Financial
 The policy excluded the financial information like which party will pay the cost of ISP filtering and
site blocking.
 It also unaddressed that who will pay the cost of sending copyright infringement notice to users
who breach the law.

Legal
 Federal Government Agency (ASIC) gave the IP address of the server to Internet Service Provider
to block a deceptive website instead of the website’s domain name or URL address. Due to this,
around 250,000 inoffensive websites have been notoriously blocked while it required blocking
just one deceptive website. This happened because that server hosted too many other websites.
 Should this policy will provide detailed information about criteria on which ISP are able to decide
and choose which website has to be blocked.
 The policy is failed to address some threshold questions like “meaning of primary purpose” and
“what is facilitation” and “meaning of online location”.

Social
 Probable involvement of website blocking on file-sharing sites such as Dropbox and Mega Chat.

7118IBA 5 s5064792
Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder analysis can be defined as a systematic process of collecting and examining information to
decide whose concerned ought to be considered when creating and executing any policy.

Defining Stakeholders
According to Carroll, stakeholders are “those groups or individuals with whom the organization interacts
or has interdependencies” and “any individual or group who can affect or is affected by the actions,
decisions, policies, practices or goals of the organization” (Carroll, 1993, p. 60). Find chronological history
of stakeholder in the B. Chronicle order of Stakeholder Definitions (Appendix B).

Who are stakeholders?

The most important stakeholders involved in this case study are analysed in the following sections. For
detailed list of stakeholder involved in the case study refer A. General List of Stakeholder (Appendix A).

Dallas Buyers Club LLC and Voltage Pictures

In Dallas Buyers Club vs. iiNET case study, it is clear that Dallas Buyers Club and Voltage Pictures are
directly affected; therefore they are considered as the first stakeholder.

Dallas Buyers Club LLC and Voltage Pictures claimed to be the copyright owner of the American film
Dallas Buyers Club (2013). See C. Mr. Michael Wickstrom’s Affidavit (Appendix C) to refer Affidavit
submitted by Mr. Michael Wickstrom (Vice precedent of Royalties - Voltage Pictures). As per the
copyright rule, no one can illegally download a copy of a movie from an internet without permission. In
October 2014, DBC LLC filed a case against iiNET and other internet service providers because the
company suspected that 4726 customers of these ISPs unlawfully downloaded the movie from Bit
Torrent without having its copyright. Dallas Buyers Club LLC was the first applicant of the piracy case
between Dallas Buyers Club and iiNET including other five Internet Service Providers.

In February 2015, this application was heard first time in the court. During this, Justice Perram
considered Voltage Pictures as the second applicant of the case. The applicants affirmed that users
breach the low of Copyright Act 1968. The right holders do not have any idea of end-users who did this
infringement. However, the applicants only have IP addresses of users who illegitimately downloaded
the movie. The Voltage Pictures asked detailed contact information of 4726 customers from these ISPs.
ISPs refused to provide contact details of their users and came up with some issues like how applicants
found IP addresses. In response to this question, the applicants presented two statements (Mandoh,
2015):

1. The statement of expert Dr Simone Richter

2. Mr Daniel Macek’s sworn statement (affidavit)

The applicants declared that they found IP addresses using a piece of software called ‘Maverik Monitor’
(Case summary: Dallas Buyers Club v iiNet, 2015). They also added that this software is capable of finding
information of ISPs and IP addresses through which files have been shared using BitTorrent.

7118IBA 6 s5064792
The Justice Perram gave the first decision in support of DBC LLC and Voltage Picture, on 7 th April 2015.
Justice Perram ordered six ISPs to deliver contact details of 4726 users but applicants had to first get
permission before communicating with infringers. This condition was applied in order to stop tentative
invoicing. Later on, Justice Perram refused to give contact details of 4726 customers because right
holders proposed not only contact details but also other addition details.

The following four charges DBC LLC proposed to demand from the users who illegally downloaded
movie.

1. Actual purchase price for number of copy of a movie which is downloaded unlawfully.
2. Charge for each illicit uploading or sharing through BitTorrent.
3. Penal charges – according to the number of other copyrighted movies
4. Cost of finding details of each user who committed a breach.

The Court agreed with the 1st and 4th demand. However, it is found that among these four charges two
(2nd and 3rd) were not allowed according to the Australian law (Ockenden, 2015). At last, Justice Perram
proposed one condition to get infringers contact detail. If DBC LLC is ready to pay $600,000 as a bond by
11th February 2016, then they can get infringers contact details. The applicants did a further application
to reduce bond and insist on accepting two impermissible charges in December 2015. However, Justice
Perram refused this application and warned that if they failed to do further steps then he will reject the
application and close the case. DBC LLC and Voltage Picture decided not to proceed further. At last, the
Australian Federal Court discharged this case.

Internet Service Provides

An ISP (stands for Internet service provider) is an association through which users can access Internet
Services. For example, ISPs in Australia are iiNET, Telstra, Internode, Adam Internet, and Dodo Internet.

The six ISPs (namely, Internode Pty Ltd, Amnet Broadband Pty Ltd, Dodo Services Pty Ltd, Adam Internet
Pty Ltd and Wideband Networks Pty Ltd) were the respondents in the case between Dallas Buyers Club
and Voltage Picture and six ISPs. The orders of the respondents are as follows:

1. iiNET Limited (1st respondent)

2. Internode Pty Ltd (2nd respondent)
3. Amnet Broadband Pty Ltd (3rd respondent)
4. Dodo Services Pty Ltd (4th respondent)
5. Adam Internet Pty Ltd (5th respondent)
6. Wideband Networks Pty Ltd (6th respondent)

In October 2014, DBC LLC and Voltage Pictures filed the preliminary application in the Australian Federal
Court to get contact details of 4726 customers of these six ISPs who downloaded the movie illegally.

The ISPs have a choice to take an impartial position and inform the court that, “The dispute is between
the Voltage Pictures company and the users who downloaded the movie illegally.” Instead of this, iiNET
and other ISPs decided to oppose the court application filed by the copyrights holders (Dalby, 2017).

7118IBA 7 s5064792
The company is concerned that their users are unlawfully marked to resolve application without
involving court procedures, which is known as ‘speculative invoicing’, Steve Dalby (Chief Officer of iiNET)
said (Dallas Buyers Club, 2017).

The ISPs opposed the preliminary application charged by copyrights holders on many standpoints. Firstly,
the applicants failed to provide enough evidence of how they found violating IP addressed. Based on
this, ISPs said that the application against them is tentative. Secondly, ISPs also refused that the
applicants have provided evidence of having copyrights of Dallas Buyers Club movie. In addition to that,
ISPs did the application to the Court that the Court ought not to force ISPs to disclose their customers’
private and personal information. There are many reasons behind this application. The main reason was
that the applicants’ financial claims against users were so diminutive and simple.

However, the Court was against this application of ISPs and orders them to reveal contact details of 4726
users. With this order, the court applied two conditions. First, the applicants ought not to allow
threatening to the users by sending tentative invoices. Second, the Court took responsibilities of
whatever else takes place and protects users’ privacy (Simpson, 2015).

The Australian Federal Court

In October 2014, DBC LLC filed a case against iiNET and other five internet service providers. The case
was filed in the Australian Federal Court. This application was heard by Justice Perram.

Justice Perram J
Justice Nye Perram gave the statement about the application submitted by the applicants to charge 4726
users, ‘so surreal as not to be taken seriously’ (Bibby, & Francis, 2017).

Justice Perram gave the first decision in favour of DBC LLC and Voltage Pictures and order ISPs to reveal
contact details of 4726 users who downloaded the movie illegally. To prevent tentative invoicing, Justice
Perram applied two conditions. First, the applicants ought not to allow threatening to the users by
sending tentative invoices. Second, the applicants should have to verify any request with him before
sending to users. Later on, Justice Perram refused to give contact details of 4726 customers because
right holders proposed not only contact details but also other addition details as mentioned under the
heading of Dallas Buyers Club and Voltage Pictures. See D. Draft Letter Submitted by DBC LLC (Appendix
D) for more details included in the draft letter submitted by DBC LLC to the Federal Court. Refer E.
Telephonic Script Submitted by DBC LLC (Appendix E) to read the script of telephony submitted by DBC
LLC to the Federal Court.

At last, Justice Perram proposed one condition to get infringers contact detail. If DBC LLC is ready to pay
$600,000 as a bond by 11th February 2016, then they can get infringers contact details. The applicants
did the further application to reduce bond and insist on accepting two impermissible charges in
December 2015. However, Justice Perram refused this application and warned that if they failed to do
further steps then he will reject the application and close the case. DBC LLC and Voltage Picture decided
not to proceed further. At last, the Australian Federal Court discharged this case (Whigham, 2016).

7118IBA 8 s5064792
Website Owners
Due to this issue, to prevent internet piracy, the Australian Federal Court ordered ISPs to block websites
which provide infringes content. Some examples of banned websites are BitTorrent, The Pirate Bay, Solar
Movies, TorrentHound, Torrentz, IsoHunt, 123Movie.

In February, Village Roadshow and Foxtel submitted their case in the Australian Federal Court to block a
number of websites. Village Roadshow wanted to block website like Solar Movies. While Foxtel wanted
to block websites like TorrentHound, Torrentz, IsoHunt, and The Pirate Bay. The Federal Court allowed
them to block listed websites (Jager, 2017).

Peter Tonagh, the Chief Executive Officer of Foxtel, accepted this decision by saying that, this decision
was the most important to prevent internet piracy and in teaching the people that to access such
websites was not right and he referred doing this act as ‘theft’ (Ockenden, & Sturmer, 2016).

The Federal Court decided that people get the warning page if they continue to access blocked websites.
This warning page or destination page is either designed by right holders or ISPs.

Website owners of these websites are directly affected by this decision of the Australian Federal Court.

Internet Users

The 83% of total population of Australia uses the internet ("Australia Internet Users", 2017). Out of this
percentage, 4726 users were directly affected due to the case between Dallas Buyers Club and ISPs. The
reason behind this is that, as mentioned earlier in this report, the DBC LLC suspected that 4726
customers unlawfully the downloaded movie from Bit Torrent without having its copyright.

Due to this issue, the Australian Federal Court decided to block websites having infringement content to
prevent internet piracy. In addition to this, the Australian Government approved the Online Infringement
(Copyright Amendment) Bill 2015 in June 2015 (Borella, 2016).

In addition to these 4726 users, each internet user who was accessing such websites is affected by these
two decisions. Hence, the internet users are considered as the important stakeholder in this case study.

7118IBA 9 s5064792
Media Distributors
The Media Distributors or Entertainment Distributors are considered as one of the stakeholders because
they are affected due to the case between Dallas Buyers Club and iiNET including other five ISPs. Due to
this case, the Australian film distributors (for example, Foxtel, Netflix) had to stop around 60 portals
containing Torrents, the Pirate Bay and so forth. This decision has been taken to put a full stop on such
piracy issues in Australia.

This was most important step to stop piracy cases in Australia. However, there are still some ways to
access blocked websites like using VPN or proxy servers. Australia needs some more powerful and
effective policy to stop online piracy from the root.

7118IBA 10 s5064792
Conclusions

From research, it is clear that DBC LLC was intended to collect hundreds of dollars from Australian pirates
using technique called ‘tentative invoicing' because DBC LLC used the same method against the US and
other countries. On another side, many people believed that the Australian Federal Court allowed DBC
LLC to take an action against Australian pirates to stop piracy in Australia.

On 10 February 2016, the applicants had decided not to charge any further application on this issue. At
last, the Australian Federal Court discharged this case. The Australian pirates succeeded the battle
against DBC LLC and Voltage Pictures. However, the Australian Government approved the Online
Infringement (Copyright Amendment) Bill 2015 to stop piracy in Australia.

Whole track of this fight attracts eyes not only towards the case of DBC LLC against 4726 Australian
pirates caught to unlawfully downloaded and shared contents of 2013 Hollywood movie ‘Dallas Buyers
Club’ but also ‘how to stop the piracy?’ Many organizations and people were concerned about an online
piracy issue. Also, the Australian Government tried to take serious decisions regarding the copyright law
after this case to permanently give a 'Red Light' to an Australian Pirates.

7118IBA 11 s5064792
Bibliography

Academic References and Journals

Bankes, S. (2002). Tools and Techniques for Developing Policies for Complex and Uncertain Systems. In
National Academy of Sciences, 7263–7266. Santa Monica: PNAS. Retrieved from
http://www.pnas.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/content/99/suppl_3/7263.full.pdf

Carroll, A. B. (1993). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati: College
Division, South-Western.

Fimmano, G., & Irwin, J. (2015). Preliminary Discovery Allowed in Case of Online Infringement, (17), 17.
Retrieved from http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Documents/INTABulletin_Vol70no17.pdf

Magness, V. (2008). Who Are the Stakeholders Now? An Empirical Examination of the Mitchell, Agle, and
Wood Theory of Stakeholder Salience. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 177-192. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25482365

Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience:
Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-
886. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259247

Schmeer, K. (1999). Guidelines for conducting a stakeholder analysis (1st ed.). Bethesda, MD: PHR, Abt
Associates.

T. N. Garavan, (1995) "Stakeholders and Strategic Human Resource Development", Journal of

European Industrial Training, 19(10), 11-16, doi: 10.1108/03090599510095825

7118IBA 12 s5064792
Web Pages

1. Australia Internet Users. (2017). Internetlivestats.com. Retrieved 3 April 2017, from

http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/australia/
2. Bibby, P., & Francis, H. (2015). Dallas Buyers Club dealt major blow in Federal Court iiNet piracy
case. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-
life-news/dallas-buyers-club-dealt-major-blow-in-federal-court-iinet-piracy-case-20150813-
giyyd7.html
3. Borella, S. (2016). INSIDE LAW: Dallas Buyers Club and Village cases explained. If.com.au.
Retrieved 3 April 2017, from http://if.com.au/2016/04/28/article/INSIDE-LAW-Dallas-Buyers-
Club-and-Village-cases-explained/EYVYLSUVIQ.html
4. Case summary: Dallas Buyers Club v iiNet (2015). (2015). olbrychtpalmer.net. Retrieved from
http://olbrychtpalmer.net/2015/04/22/dallas-buyers-club-fca-casenote.html
5. Dalby, S. (2017). Not our kind of club | the iiNet Blog. Blog.iinet.net.au. Retrieved 3 April 2017,
from http://blog.iinet.net.au/not-our-kind-of-club/
6. Dallas Buyers Club. (2017). En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 3 April 2017, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Buyers_Club
7. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited (No 4) [2015] FCA 838. (2016). Judgments.fedcourt.gov.au.
Retrieved 3 April 2017, from
http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2015/2015fca0838
8. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited [2015] FCA 317. (2016). Judgments.fedcourt.gov.au.
Retrieved 3 April 2017, from
http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2015/2015fca0317
9. Grubb, B. (2015). Australian senate passes controversial anti-piracy, website-blocking laws. The
Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-
news/australian-senate-passes-controversial-antipiracy-websiteblocking-laws-20150622-
ghuorh.html
10. Jager, C. (2017). Here Are All The Websites Village Roadshow Is Banning In Australia Read more
at https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/02/here-are-all-the-websites-village-roadshow-is-
banning-in-australia/#q735Vsx0pA83gPk4.99. GIZMODO. Retrieved from
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/03/here-are-all-the-websites-village-roadshow-is-banning-
in-australia/
11. Mandoh, M. (2015). Case Note: Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited [2015] FCA 317.
Technolegem. Retrieved from https://www.technolegem.org/2015/04/case-note-dallas-buyers-
club-llc-v-iinet-limited-2015-fca-317/
12. Moon, P. (2014). Dallas Buyers Club piracy demands illegal as iiNET stands up for customers Read
more: http://www.afr.com/technology/web/security/dallas-buyers-club-piracy-demands-illegal-
as-iinet-stands-up for customers. The Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 3 April 2017, from
http://www.afr.com/technology/web/security/dallas-buyers-club-piracy-demands-illegal-as-
iinet-stands-up-for-customers-20141027-11cbzd
13. Ockenden, W. (2015). Dallas Buyers Club: Federal Court backs ISPs in row over illegal downloads.
ABC. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-14/iinet-dallas-buyers-club/6697314

7118IBA 13 s5064792
 14. Ockenden, W., & Sturmer, J. (2016). Print Email Facebook Twitter More Internet companies
forced to block The Pirate Bay, bittorrent websites in Australia, Federal Court rules. Abc.
Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-15/federal-court-orders-pirate-bay-
blocked-in-australia/8116912
15. Ramali, D. (2015). Dallas Buyers Club loses second bid to identify iiNet 'pirates'. Dallas Buyers
Club Loses Second Bid To Identify Iinet 'Pirates'. Retrieved from
http://www.smh.com.au/business/dallas-buyers-club-loses-second-bid-to-identify-iinet-pirates-
20151216-glowvd.html
16. Simpson, C. (2015). iiNet Lost Its Piracy Fight Against Dallas Buyers Club. Gizmodo.com.au.
Retrieved 11 April 2017, from https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/04/iinet-lost-its-fight-against-
dallas-buyers-club/
17. Thomas, J. (2015). How will Australia's anti-piracy law affect you?. Sbs. Retrieved from
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/06/23/how-will-australias-anti-piracy-law-affect-you
18. Turner, A. (2015). Is iiNet's Dallas Buyers Club win an early Christmas present for Aussie pirates?
The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/digital-
life/computers/gadgets-on-the-go/is-iinets-dallas-buyers-club-win-an-early-christmas-present-
for-aussie-pirates-20151217-glq5a8.html
19. WEBB, T., & KEY-MATUSZAK, P. (2016). Implications of the Dallas Buyers Club v iiNet decisions -
Knowledge - Clayton Utz. Claytonutz.com. Retrieved 3 April 2017, from
https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2016/april/implications-of-the-dallas-buyers-club-v-
iinet-decisions
20. Whigham, N. (2016). Dallas Buyers Club war with iiNet downloaders finally comes to an end.
News.Com.Au. Retrieved from http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/piracy/dallas-
buyers-club-war-with-iinet-downloaders-finally-comes-to-an-end/news-
story/a51ba7091b090be07a559a3cab8ad7f1
21. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet. (2015). Copyright.org.au. Retrieved 3 April 2017, from
https://www.copyright.org.au/acc_prod/ACC/News_items/Dallas_Buyers_Club_LLC_v_iiNet.aspx

Appendix
A. General List of Stakeholder

 Dallas Buyers Club

7118IBA 14 s5064792
  The Voltage Pictures
 Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
o iiNET
o Internode Pty Ltd
o Amnet Broadband Pty Ltd
o Dodo Services Pty Ltd
o Adam Internet Pty Ltd
o Wideband Networks Pty Ltd
 The Federal Court and Justice Perram
 Internet Users
 The Media
 Two German Experts
o Dr Simone Richter
o Mr Daniel Macek
 Website Owners
 Michael Bradley – a lawyer of DBC LLC
 Graham Phillips – a lawyer of ISPs
 Steve Dalby – iiNET director
 Michael Wickstrom – vice president of Royalties, Voltage Pictures
 Mark Vincent – an IP lawyer, Shelston
 Tom Godfrey – in-charge of media team, CHOICE
 The Communications Alliance
 Erin Turner – CHOICE campaigns manager
 Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) and Policy Officer at ACCAN,
Xavier O’Halloran
 Media Distributors

7118IBA 15 s5064792
B. Chronicle order of Stakeholder Definitions

7118IBA 16 s5064792
C. Mr. Michael Wickstrom’s Affidavit

Refer the following article for more information.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/578122/here-what-dallas-buyers-club-letter-pirates-could-
look-like/

D. Draft Letter Submitted by DBC LLC

Refer the following article for more information.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/578122/here-what-dallas-buyers-club-letter-pirates-could-
look-like/

E. Telephonic Script Submitted by DBC LLC

Refer the following article for more information.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/578122/here-what-dallas-buyers-club-letter-pirates-could-
look-like/

7118IBA 17 s5064792
F. Case Summary in Chronological order

This content depicts the Dallas buyers Club LLC vs. iiNET case summery according to order of data [19].

7118IBA 18 s5064792