Illegal downloaders, beware: there may still be legal troubles for you in the future, even if the thousands of Australians targeted for pirating Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) can now breathe a little easier.

Key points: Dallas Buyers Club lawyers missed the deadline to lodge an appeal, affectively ending their legal bid

Dallas Buyers Club lawyers missed the deadline to lodge an appeal, affectively ending their legal bid But they say there may be more action because infringements are generally continuing

But they say there may be more action because infringements are generally continuing Experts say this may just be the first "skirmish" in a larger battle

The final instalment in the landmark piracy case came yesterday when the deadline passed for DBC LLC, the company that owns the rights to the 2013 film, to lodge any further appeals following a legal ruling last year.

Michael Bradley, managing partner at Marque Lawyers, who were acting on behalf of DBC LLC, confirmed the company opted not to proceed after "weighing everything up".

But illegal downloads in general "are still going on," he said.

"I expect we'll see more action."

DBC LLC had sought the contact details of Australians who pirated the film.

But the Federal Court decided letters the firm was intending to send to those pirates — a process known as speculative invoicing, where people receive demands for large payments with the threat of being sued — constituted an overreach.

What were those letters? The letters would have included demands for:

1. The cost of the purchase of a single copy of the film, for each copy downloaded 2. A "licence fee" for each person found to have also uploaded the film 3. Extra damages depending on how many copies of other copyrighted works had been downloaded by each infringer 4. Court costs for expenses in retrieving each downloader's name

Graham Phillips, partner at Thomson Geer Lawyers, who acted on behalf of iiNet and other internet service providers, said it was likely the company did a cost-benefit analysis and worked out the money was not there if speculative invoicing was not an option.

"It brings up intent: was it purely deterrence, or was it a money-making exercise?" Mr Phillips said of the legal action.

But Mr Bradley said it was never clear what the outcome of the letters would be, given none were ever sent.

Former iiNet director Steve Dalby was pleased with the latest development.

Loading

Mr Phillips said DBC LLC "theoretically" could file new claims related to later instances of illegal downloading.

"They could have another go with any future films, [but] they might decide it's not worth their while," he said.

Other rights holders might try a similar tactic, too, Mr Phillips said, but that it was unlikely any would "overreach" and try to make "outrageous claims".

"There's been a lesson here going forward [for pirates]: you can be exposed," he said.

"The question is — is this the right thing to do? Given Netflix and Stan and streaming services, it begs the question whether using peer-to-peer illegally is worth it."

Matthew Rimmer, professor of intellectual property and innovation law at Queensland University of Technology, said this litigation was an "early skirmish".

"There's increasing activity in terms of copyright owners placing pressure on both intermediaries (ISPs) and individual users on the unauthorised use of copyright works," he said.

"Perhaps [this] will put people on notice ... [as well as] copyright owners on notice about how they should proceed with these matters."