AFACT to try taking iiTrial to High Court

By Ry Crozier on Mar 24, 2011 2:04 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Seeks to overturn authorisation ruling.

Film Studios locked in a copyright battle with iiNet have indicated they will seek leave to lodge a High Court appeal against a decision that seemed to absolve the ISP from responsibility for its users' alleged piracy.

The decision by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft to pursue this course was widely tipped because it was the final hurdle before it could appeal for Government intervention.

The federation's director Neil Gane said the studios would seek a High Court ruling that iiNet had authorised acts of copyright infringement that occurred on its network.

Previous rulings by Federal Court Judge Dennis Cowdroy and by the Full Bench of the Federal Court found against the studios on the key point of authorisation.

But, buoyed by a judgment last month that afforded the studios significant concessions compared to the original judgment, AFACT said today it would seek leave to file a High Court appeal on the authorisation issue.

"In response to the Full Court's conclusion that iiNet did not have sufficient knowledge of the infringements to authorise them, the film companies will argue that iiNet did have sufficient knowledge, that it admitted the acts of infringement and that its CEO admitted on the stand that the evidence was 'compelling'," Gane said.

"We are confident of our grounds for appeal and hopeful that special leave to the High Court will be granted."

The move was unlikely to be met favourably by iiNet, whose chief Michael Malone blasted the film industry last month for "wasting" two years suing ISPs rather than coming to the table to negotiate a genuine long-term solution to online piracy."

Indeed, Malone reiterated previous statements today that even if the film industry won its High Court appeal, illegal downloading on internet networks wouldn't stop.

Only last week iiNet proposed the establishment of an "independent body" to handle allegations of copyright infringement against internet users, with the power to issue demerit points and fines for breaches.

That came as the Internet Industry Association resurrected attempts to create an industry code to deal with internet piracy on ISP networks.

Malone called on content owners to focus their efforts on making content legitimately available online in more places.

AFACT to try taking iiTrial to High Court

13 comments in this discussion

"I don't like AFACT or their collaborators. And their next step will be to get court sanctions and to penalise persons. Maybe IINET could consider doing a survey of their customers opinions. If ..."

By Tom Brown

Tags

iinet, afact, appeal, judgment, federal, court, iitrial, high, piracy, internet

Bottled water case study for content makers: iiNet

Film studios survey targets ISP piracy responsibility

Plunder downunder: How to read the iiTrial piracy verdict

iiNet, AFACT appeal judgment due tomorrow

Breaking Stories

HP, ACCC reach agreement on warranty case

NBN Co launches 25/5 Mbps fixed wireless services

DFAT satisfied with Passports system

iiNet fined $102,000 over Naked DSL bus ad

Neural networks, Google and cats

Readers of this article also read...

Comments: 13

DP Mar 24, 2011 2:37 PM	OMG, let it go! You lost, TWICE!
frogg11 Mar 24, 2011 3:14 PM	AFACT members should have put their efforts into producing an online content distribution model that the average person could understand and use. However, they have no understanding of modern technology and bo concept of business planning so they just resort to the tired old tactic of wasting money on expensive lawyers. Talk about Bastards Incorporated!
Paul K Mar 24, 2011 3:19 PM	Yes, if the law doesnt suit you, lets lobby the gov with endless funds to get it changed. Expect to see more "reports" of Australian job losses to piracy over the coming months.
jtfoto Mar 24, 2011 3:20 PM	Oh leave it alone AFACT! When will the neanderthal music and film industry stop using flint and start using silicon. Nothing but an outdated greedy pack of bastards.
Ace Mar 24, 2011 3:25 PM	Well, the loss was a very narrow loss and in fact the judges looked favourably on some of their arguments, so it's probably worth a shot in the high court, which is probably a much better place for this kind of argument (as far as AFACT is concerned).
Mitch Mar 24, 2011 4:06 PM	Yawn again! Its like seeing Warnie or Charlie Sheen in the media again. AFACT I got another word for you AFUCT..
Bourkie Mar 24, 2011 4:25 PM	I can't wait to see the Full Bench judgement overturned and the original judgement reinstated =) Suffer in your jocks AFACT!
meski Mar 24, 2011 4:30 PM	Just declare AFACT to be a vexatious litigant and have done with it.
grump3 Mar 24, 2011 5:31 PM	What's their next target...Free to Air TV's "authorised acts of copyright infringement"? Banning VCRs & PVRs perhaps? It's not piracy that's killing sales but their DRM crippled, outdated, overpriced, computer generated, overdone mishmash of "Special Effects" they try to pass off as "entertainment" nowadays. We get better value just browsing the internet on our PCs & haven't purchased, rented of watched, a 'movie' not on FTA TV in years.
KB Mar 24, 2011 6:08 PM	How is it that Apple with their iPod, iPhone and iPad can have a shop that work perfectly fine for people who like to download and watch movies, at a reasonable cost, and that Austar & Foxtel can also have system in place, but AFACT does not want to work with ISPs to get something similar working? Maybe it is because of the ridiculous court ruling from the US where people have been fined thousands of $s per song and they want that money, not the $3 or $4 for a weeks viewing.
Des Gusting Mar 24, 2011 8:37 PM	Should AFACT win against iiNet does that also mean that the door is open for Telstra to tape all my calls and that Aust Post has to open and record all my mail???? It's not iiNet's responsibility to police what we do, they are just a carriage service the same as Telstra and Aussie Post. I like the argument about AFACT being "vexatious litigant's", brilliant.
anonymous Mar 25, 2011 12:33 PM	Lighten up, folks. It's obviously better for the content corporations to hand their millions to lawyers and politicians than to market their stuff in a way that's easy for us to buy. Who could argue against that kind of commercial logic?
Tom Brown Mar 25, 2011 4:29 PM	I don't like AFACT or their collaborators. And their next step will be to get court sanctions and to penalise persons. Maybe IINET could consider doing a survey of their customers opinions. If their customers overwhelmingly support that IINET is not responsible then get the independent ISP's together to petition the court and governments, state and Commonwealth. That way even if AFACT gets a win, legislature may be enacted to protect the private individual and control AFACTs backers.