Hollywood drops another claim in iiNet suit

  • Email a Friend
  • Print Page
Hollywood drops another claim in iiNet suit
"If a drunk driver drives on a motorway, is the motorway operator liable, or the driver? If police find stolen goods in someone's locker in a building site is the site manager liable? It makes no ..."
By adavion
 
Sep 30, 2009 5:14 PM
Tags: iinet | afact | court | caching

Complainant: Caching was "subsidiary" to case.

The film industry group suing a Perth ISP has withdrawn a contentious allegation from its case a week before it was due to be heard in NSW Federal Court.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft withdrew allegations that the ISP iiNet cached illegal copies of films on its servers.

It was the second time the group that represents copyright holders had dropped part of its case against the provider.

A federation spokesman said it was a "subsidiary part of the studios' case".

"It's always been secondary," the spokesman said.

"We're so confident in the main part of our case, which has always been the authorisation claim, that we don't feel we need the subsidiary part."

Its case now centres on whether iiNet encouraged ("authorised") its customers to break Australia's copyright laws.

The film group suggested in its outline of opening submissions that iiNet's continued granting of internet access to users that the federation said it had identified as copyright infringers amounted to "implicit encouragement".

It said it was confident of its case and had no plans to drop further parts of its claim.

iiNet said the withdrawn claim was not secondary.

It said the caching allegation was the film industry's "primary copyright infringement claim" and "a key claim in [the federation's] case".

"The latest claim the film studios are dropping alleged that iiNet made copies of the films," an iiNet spokesman said.

"The allegations were unfounded and demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of internet technology and operations.

"It's just packets of data going through the phone line. iiNet aren't storing the data anywhere."

iiNet said it would seek legal costs over the withdrawn claim.

The case will be heard next Tuesday before Justice Dennis Cowdroy.


 
Comments: 9
Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.
anonymous
Oct 1, 2009 7:18 AM
Ahhh, yes. Flawyers.

What would we do without them?

(Answers are subject to the moderator's discretion!)
Tom
Oct 1, 2009 11:10 AM
So on one hand we have Foxtel pleading with ISPs to remove download limits and on the other we have AFACT stating that iiNet's promotion of high download limits was encouraging illegal activity.

Which one is it? Let me guess. AFACT don't see issues with any technology as long as their members benefit.

Hopefully the courts see AFACTs case as a simple case of one industry attempting to shape the law to their own benefit at the expense of the wider community.
Slatts
Oct 1, 2009 11:45 AM
confusing isn't it Tom?

If Ifact put their money into rationalising the distribution of their content equitably and efficiently instead of wasting it on show trials and chasing injunctions against the rising tide, there would no longer be a problem.

It's high time that the principals behind AFACT got their collective heads out of their asses and joined the rest of us in the 21st century.
Slatts
Oct 1, 2009 11:47 AM
I wish they'd put an edit button in this forum so I could fix my typos :-(

Ifact = AFACT
Mac
Oct 1, 2009 11:56 AM
iinet is becoming a tall poppy and it getting a smack on the head and that's afact
Slatts
Oct 1, 2009 12:21 PM
Hang your head Mac.
A typo is excusable but that was just awful.
wakatack
Oct 1, 2009 1:11 PM
I read about this when it first came out.... maybe i mis-understood, but is this case based around ISP's making available and encouraging updating your account to accomadate more downloads?

If so i have two very key things to say:
1. I just spent the last 3 years in London, on ADSL2+ where i actually sustained 22mbps (vs the usual 16mbps you get in Oz), AND it was truely UNLIMITED (not 25,60,90 GB) - and all for 17 pounds a month. - So its about time Australian ISPs starting giving us access to download limits which compliment the faster speeds.
2. I work in IT, and when i arrived back in Oz i proceeded to download all the Microsoft Trial software to buildup my Virtual Server LAB to help train and get certifications while looking for a job. In a matter of days i had blown my ISPs 60GB cap and was now being throttled...
So based on this case, should i expect a court summons for having internet usuage bahvior only a Music/Video pirator can have????

hmmm....
I know the last year or two has been tough for everyone, but I still laugh seeing how many people are suing....

;)
Slatts
Oct 1, 2009 2:04 PM
wakatack wrote:
I read about this when it first came out....


to much information there wakatack!

wakatack wrote:
maybe i mis-understood, but is this case based around ISP's making available and encouraging updating your account to accomadate more downloads?


That was just a throwaway line that AFACT threw into the mix the other day to muddy the warters.
It's mostly about iinet not closing down the accounts of people when AFACTs people told them they'd been sharing pirated software / music / movies as I understand it.
iinets stance is that if the people in question were breaking a law, AFACT should take it up with the police who in turn could prosecute the offenders.
iinet was taking the view that it is just a conduit to the web in much the same way as a telephone company is a conduit for phone messages and can't be held responsible for criminals planning a crime over the phone.
It makes perfect sense to everyone except AFACT.
This is the second bit of the case to fall off.
AFACT, I think, were hoping that iinet would capitulate to their bullying and the whole thing would never reach the courts.

wakatack wrote:
If so i have two very key things to say:
1. I just spent the last 3 years in London, on ADSL2+ where i actually sustained 22mbps (vs the usual 16mbps you get in Oz), AND it was truely UNLIMITED (not 25,60,90 GB) - and all for 17 pounds a month. - So its about time Australian ISPs starting giving us access to download limits which compliment the faster speeds.
2. I work in IT, and when i arrived back in Oz i proceeded to download all the Microsoft Trial software to buildup my Virtual Server LAB to help train and get certifications while looking for a job. In a matter of days i had blown my ISPs 60GB cap and was now being throttled...
So based on this case, should i expect a court summons for having internet usuage bahvior only a Music/Video pirator can have????

hmmm....
I know the last year or two has been tough for everyone, but I still laugh seeing how many people are suing....

;)

I'm on plan with AAPT that gives me 10 gig per month but with truly unlimited downloads between 8PM and 8AM. I've just moved over to it but it looks good so far. I just had to get the kids in the habit of downloading their games and patches after 8PM.

of course, the above is just my personal opinion of what's going on.
I may be way off the mark.

And waka? easy on the personal stuff cobber.
;-)
adavion
Oct 2, 2009 1:49 PM
If a drunk driver drives on a motorway, is the motorway operator liable, or the driver? If police find stolen goods in someone's locker in a building site is the site manager liable? It makes no sense for an information superhighway access provider (apologies for that outdated analogy) to be liable when the highway operator is not. It similarly makes no sense for a website hosting company to be liable for things when an apartment landlord would not.

AFUCT (no apologies for the non typo) needs a reality check. They want to reverse the presumption of innocence and require private (corporate) citizens exercise powers akin to police powers of arrest and seizure.

Walk into a parking garage - point at a car and tell the attendant "That's my car. It was stolen! Give me the keys...and ban the driver from parking here from now on." and see what happens next. Sure you might be able to show at some time you used to own a piece of a similar looking car in another jurisdiction, but can you prove this car is yours, the law in the other country applies in Australia and the car was not legitimately acquired? What happens if the garage attendant just hands over the keys and you are wrong?

[It's been a while, since I last looked but I recollect that you are authorised to copy any media irrespective copyright for the purposes of facilitating you personal storage, dealing with changes in format and other such things... This means if you operate your own personal, private pirate warez site with 1 subscriber - you; you can download all the movies you want.

As an aside did anyone hear the AFUCT comment on the Pirate Party? Paraphrasing: AFUCT: "We don't see how anyone can support a party advocating doing illegal acts".... Dudes have you not heard of the legislative process you go to Canberra for two reasons (besides fatnes and laziness etc) a) to make stuff illegal that is currently legal - eg internet filtration. or b) what the pirate party proposes: to make stuff legal that is currently illegal....
Comment:
Want to participate in the discussion?
Or log in now to comment
 
 
 
Top Stories
TIO website hit by malware
Weekend malware runs one new process per target machine.
 
Microsoft announces Azure launch date
Australia in second wave of country releases.
 
CBA embarks on "database-as-a-service"
Analysis: How the bank intends to save megabucks.
 

Spotlightthe topics we're following

Latest Comments

"Hahahah...What a joke!! "Conroy had said that it was not possible to apply ISP-level filtering ..."
by gerson Feb 9, 2010 10:39 PM
 
"@@Comments, yes, and history keeps repeating itself. Remember the earlier pr-and-media-fuelled ..."
by anonymous Feb 9, 2010 6:40 PM
 
"I would have paid good money to be in court when that clanger dropped. Could you imagine, the ..."
by Private Citizen Feb 9, 2010 6:23 PM
 
"He is not yet listed on NBN Co. website as part of their team of executives (http://www.nbnco.com..."
by Private Citizen Feb 9, 2010 6:07 PM
 
"That would be the list leaked on wikileaks that the minister denied was the ACMA list. The same ..."
by Private Citizen Feb 9, 2010 5:17 PM
1) HTC Magic16 plans 2%
2) Nokia N9743 plans 9%
3) Nokia E7149 plans 1%
4) Apple iPhone 3GS 16GB30 plans 11%
5) Apple iPhone 8GB42 plans 5%
1) iiNet32 plans 5%
2) Netspace36 plans 11%
3) TPG Internet19 plans 14%
4) Optus33 plans 1%
5) Telstra BigPond30 plans 2%

Mobiles | Broadband | Credit Cards

iTnews

Polls

What is the sweet spot for Apple's entry 16GB Wi-Fi iPad?




   |   View results
$549
  78%
 
$579
  10%
 
$619
  4%
 
$649
  3%
 
$699
  5%
TOTAL VOTES: 381

Vote