Telco/ISP

Day Two: iiNet, Westnet email trails revealed

"Well in response to Digger11 though do you really warrant a response? "They were always known as one of the couple of rogues in the industry (Dodo and TPG as well) for ridiculously cheap download ..."

By deonast

AFACT v iiNet: The judgement in full

Day 20: iiNet refuses to play police for film industry

Day 16: iiNet authorised infringing acts, says film industry

Day 17: Film industry attacks iiNet witness selection

Breaking Stories

Microsoft denies Windows 7 battery problems

Ex-Intel executive owns up to insider trading

Optus to boost HFC network up to 100 Mbps

Microsoft launches Surface, unveils partners and customers

Opinion: Webjet brings 'cloud' claims back down to earth

By Ry Crozier

Oct 7, 2009 11:56 AM

Film industry exposes internal iiNet dialogue in landmark case.

The film industry has attempted to use a trail of internal training documents and emails to prove ISP iiNet turned a blind eye to copyright infringement on its network.

General counsel for the industry, Tony Bannon, revealed a trail of emails allegedly sent between iiNet chief Michael Malone and Westnet's operations manager Alan Ariti and chief operating officer Eric Cain during iiNet's acquisition of the fellow Perth-based ISP.

Malone was alleged to have queried Westnet's position on passing infringement notices from the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) to customers.

He was alleged to have said it was the "opposite of iiNet's [position] and that Westnet was "making more work for no benefit" by passing on the notices.

Ariti was alleged to have responded that Westnet was "acting with conscience on the notices" by passing them on to customers.

The film industry's general counsel claimed Ariti's response "didn't find favour" with Malone, who "went on the attack".

"Taking the opposing argument, a random third party is lodging an unsubstantiated accusation against a customer and you're passing it on?" Malone allegedly wrote to Ariti.

"Your current approach is doing damage to the industry and iiNet's position on this matter."

It was also claimed that Westnet had developed a program that was able to automatically forward infringement notices to users that were allegedly sharing illegal files.

The film industry also revealed the text of an email from an iiNet network engineer, allegedly warning management that the email address used for copyright infringement correspondence that was listed on the iiNet website did not work.

"I've just found out the copyright officer at iiNet address doesn't exist on our system," the engineer allegedly wrote.

"It could mean you've been missing crap emails about copyright for some time. If the address is really no longer in use it should be removed from our website."

General counsel for the film industry told the court the "crap" tag "could be how they regard emails addressing copyright infringement".

A separate email allegedly showed Leroy Parkinson, who manages a team that handles issues such as law enforcement and compliance at iiNet, telling Internet Industry Association chief Peter Coroneos by email that "AFACT's correspondence almost constitutes spam for iiNet now."

The case continues.

Read other day two coverage of the case here or follow the case in-full here. For a background on the case, click here.

Comments: 20

Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.

Digger11 Oct 7, 2009 1:27 PM	No real surprise about Malones approach to all of this for anyone who has even an iota of knowledge inside the Telco sector. iiNet has made millions by attracting cusotmer who needed huge download quota's - doesn't take Eddie the expert to work out what they needed these quota's for. My suggestion is that if AFACT wins (and they should) then the other law-abiding carries should start a class-action against Malone as there is not doubt that every other Australian ISP who was forwarding these AFACT infringement notices lost existing (and potential) customers to iiNet. It basically becama bit of a word of mouth (and word of Whirlpool) that illegal downloaders should choose iiNet as they don't send the messages out. Let's hope iiNet and Malone rot in hell for their actions.
pc2099 Oct 7, 2009 2:15 PM	Digger you are an absolute FOOL! From what you have posted above you clearly have ZERO knowledge relating to the Telco sector or even life in general. To suggest that iinet was the ONLY ISP in our country to have people trading alleged copyright material is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. EVERY ISP has large to massive DL plans in excess of 100gb or more - thus by your flawed logic EVERY ISP is harboring illegal downloaders. Also lets put it in perspective - its not as if MM was out slaughtering your children (god forbid you have any), WTF do you get off saying they should rot in hell? The issue at hand is the claim iinet profit from encouraging large downloads. The REALITY as any telco manager knows is that the large lechers are actually the LEAST profitable out of any given customer base. The more someone downloads, the more it costs iinet - thats a fact. All MM was doing was defending the rights of both his customers and the general public by NOT allowing a PRIVATELY OWNED entity to dictate the guilt of otherwise innocent people. AFACT are NOT the police, they are NOT a jury, nor a judge. We have a system to determine guilt in this country but clearly you and AFACT would be happier living in a dictatorship where rights are given to the privileged few.
Reece Oct 7, 2009 2:19 PM	Wow, fanboy much Digger? i) iiNet by no means has "Huge download quota's", infact we are one of the only country's in the world that put such an extreme value on quota's. Cheers Telstra ii) How is it iiNet's (or any other ISP's) responsibility to police their customers? Shouldn't that fall to the Police? iii) Why is it that AFACT are targeting a reasonably small ISP, compared to say Telstra? Or even American ISP's.. did they fail there? America's population 307,636,729(www.census.gov) to Australia's 22,007,180(www.abs.gov.au). "Let's hope iiNet and Malone rot in hell for their actions." you are either some random pub like me that doesn't know what they are talking about, which to me just makes you some 'evil' christian nut job.. or some AFACT propaganda freak, in which case go and sell your wares elsewhere... lol @ "rot in hell" When will these companies such as the ones from AFACT wake up and realize that the interwebs are their friend, a whole new distribution method for them to get their grubby little fingers into. Or are they just too embarrassed that they are so far behind technology?
shm123 Oct 7, 2009 3:08 PM	I don't understand why iinet are getting charged for piracy. They're merely providing the internet service. It's just like saying petrol stations and banks should take the Councils and RTA to court for providing roads and highways to let armed robbers get away.
n00bvak Oct 7, 2009 3:38 PM	Digger11. Are you really Steve Conroy??? The fact of the matter is that iinet has no responsibility to respond or act on unsubstantiated claims, as per the current AUST TELCO policy. If iinet were to disconnect a user from the unsubstantiated claims, they could be held liable. Iinet are upholding their T&C's and the rights of their customers and internet users everywhere, which a lot more than any other TELCO (ie. Telstra) would ever do. If some company said to your electricity provider that you had stolen a patent for a powersupply that they have "found" you to be using at your premise and requested them to disconnect your power immediately. You would hope that the electricity provider would tell them to fob of and get a court order as it has nothing to do with the service they are providing. It is a civil matter to be handled in an "impartial" court, not by a body with a vested interest in the outcome. I cant believe that these accusations haven't been thrown out yet, but it proves that big money moves mountains, even the judicial system. AFACT has produced in this instance 100000 unsubstantiated claims that have been found by SPYING on Australian citizens. As they represent a body of non Australian companies, shouldn't ASIO or the government be protecting its home grown businesses and more importantly its citizens!!! I'm not sure how but I would think the best way is to do what China did to that Rio Tinto exec. When will the Government of Australia stand up for its people, hey I'll even settle for listen to its people. **** WE WANT OUR FREEDOM! ******
Digger11 Oct 7, 2009 3:44 PM	or a 3rd possiblity - someone who was at a competing Telco and new exactly what iiNet were up to with their devious little marketing plan. They were always known as one of the couple of rogues in the industry (Dodo and TPG as well) for ridiculously cheap download limits up to about 2 years ago. They have now changed, so they can male more money as they have roped in all of the gullible cusonsumes. What I say stills stands 100% (and I don't care if you believe the truth or not). They are going to struggle significantly under NBN so that should probalby see the end of them anyway.
AfroTrance Oct 7, 2009 3:44 PM	shm123: Because for AFACT to sue every individual who pirates stuff would be very costly and be bad publicity.
n00bvak Oct 7, 2009 4:17 PM	Also, where did AFACT get these email communications from??? Seems they have been PIRATED. How can these even be used in court??? I would see those emails emails from AFACT as spam too, as they are about as legitimate as the clowns that send organ enlargement pills, which Digger11 clearly needs requires :P
David Havyatt Oct 7, 2009 7:28 PM	Dear n00bvak There is no mystery on how the emails became available. In legal actions there is a process known as discovery where each side provides the other with relevant documents. To the rest it is common practice in any litigation of this nature to choose only one target even though there may be many engaging in the same conduct. The AFACT team must have felt they had a better case against iiNet. Finally it is amusing to see posts here declaring from an individual's point of view the "obvious" stupidity of the application - citing the mere conduit defence. Thankfully that is what we have a court system for - might I suggest everyone simply ait or the Court to tell us whether iiNet has broken any law or not.
Prophet Oct 7, 2009 7:35 PM	@Digger 11: Are you suggesting that ISPs should become the police? Should an ISP be able cut off a client from the Internet, solely because a movie company said they were pirating a movie? I’m guessing that you haven’t heard of the countless false-positive infringement notices that have dealt here and abroad. If you had the vaguest idea how our legal systems works, you would know that no-one can classify something as illegal, except a Judge. Yet it sounds to me like you’re advocating for independent (and International) bodies to determine if someone breaching Copyright. For example, If I was stealing a DVD from a shop, would the police determine I was guilty and figure out a punishment for me? No, I’d be given a court citation and a Judge would figure out if there was enough evidence to convict me and he/she would give me an appropriate punishment. Why should it be different for downloading a movie? The model you’re suggesting is the equivalent to the shopkeeper (MPAA) reports suspect activity, the police (ISP) only having evidence of a shopkeepers testimony (who have an extensive history of reporting false-positives) automatically assume I’m guilty and figure out the punishment on the spot (Internet suspension/Termination). Where was the fair trial? Wheres the evidence? AFACT as a private body are just business men, private citizens. Yet, they want it to be that the court should just take their word. The court have no idea if the downloaded completed or if the suspect even used it. Shouldn’t a court gather the evidence and determine if the were in breech of the law, THEN if they were found guilty, the punishment ensues?
Sams Oct 7, 2009 7:55 PM	David Havyatt: "I suggest everyone simply ait or the Court to tell us whether iiNet has broken any law or not." I suggest that the law is an ass, as one of Dickens' characters put it. I'm amazed at how many Australian believe legality equals morality. Such good little citizens - they should be sent away with a pat on the head and a slice of cake for being so obedient.
tallguy Oct 7, 2009 11:58 PM	@Sams: Nice sentiment if you think your rights are being seriously infringed. Of course I'm not sure there is great hardship in being unable to access copyright content for free. What would it hurt to just live without (or pay for it)? All that said, I still don't agree that any ISP should be able to (or required to) deny service without a properly proven allegation.
Sams Oct 8, 2009 8:50 AM	@tallguy: In this case was referring to "whether iiNet has broken any law or not", not whether locking up content by copyright is moral. "I'm not sure there is great hardship in being unable to access copyright content for free. What would it hurt to just live without (or pay for it)?" An interesting topic, but not for this thread. Think textbooks and developing countries.
Digger11 Oct 8, 2009 9:36 AM	@tallguy: I am not aware of any ISP's denying service for AFACT breaches. W
Digger11 Oct 8, 2009 9:39 AM	hat the honest ISP's were doing was forwarding the AFACT notices on to the address that the IP breach was at. This often scared the customer to stop downloading/uplaoding illegal material, but often made the customer move to an ISP like iiNet where no breach notices were issues. Malone is no dill, he new he could get a competitive advantage by not following the rules - lets see if he gets his time for this.....
Digger11 Oct 8, 2009 9:47 AM	Also interesting that quite a few years ago, most of the ISP's shutdown Newsgroup Access from their servers as thet were worried about Copyright issues. iiNet did actually close theirs down as well - but then opened them back-up !!!! to loud applause on Whirlpool. The more I think about it, a class action could well be looming.
jack Oct 8, 2009 3:10 PM	There won't be any class action, stop smoking the biblical cigs please. Today IINET has just steam rolled AFACT, and it seems they have put a good case to show AFACT set it all up to contrive a case of authorisation. IINET have infact for years been trying, in co-operation with some studios, the IIA and federal government on police for handling piracy. Not to mention the fact that the studios have their logos on the bittorrent site linking them to piracy. If you think IINet were the only ISP not sending out notices(because THEY DON'T HAVE TO), you are completely wrong. Please refrain from commenting again, you clearly have no clue and would love people to be made criminals from a group that is not an authority in Australia, and mate, thats not on.
tallguy Oct 8, 2009 4:33 PM	@Sams: Good point. I was thinking too narrowly!
anonymous Oct 8, 2009 6:09 PM	So is Digger11 "a fool"? No way, perhaps s/he sounds more like a very well paid corporate mouthpiece with lots of nous and experience in seeking to influence outcomes?
deonast Oct 9, 2009 4:40 PM	Well in response to Digger11 though do you really warrant a response? "They were always known as one of the couple of rogues in the industry (Dodo and TPG as well) for ridiculously cheap download limits up to about 2 years ago. They have now changed, so they can male more money as they have roped in all of the gullible cusonsumes." Well I've been with TPG for a number of years now and I get more value for the same money with the same level of service, am I a "gullible cusonsumes". Since you support AFACT's legal action so much perhaps you deserve some against yourself, I think the word slander comes to mind. Obviously you come with some kind of hidden agenda against your named ISPs, perhaps some facts would help your arguments in future.