Day Six: iiNet strikes licensing deal with Roadshow

By Ry Crozier on Oct 13, 2009 4:07 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Adds more content to freezone.

ISP iiNet had entered an "arrangement" with Roadshow Entertainment to license some of its content legally for its freezone, the Federal Court heard today.

Roadshow Entertainment was one of a number of companies in the Village Roadshow group.

Village Roadshow was a member of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and a party to and witness in the copyright case being fought between iiNet and the film industry in court this week.

Under cross-examination, general counsel for Village Roadshow Limited, Simon Phillipson, was asked by iiNet's senior counsel Richard Cobden whether it would be correct to say that the studio sought to make its content available legally online.

Phillipson responded the studios' approach was to "exploit and derive revenue" from access to its content.

Asked by Cobden whether he would agree that the presence of legal content online "discourage[d] illegal use" of that content, Phillipson indicated he "would hope so".

Cobden questioned Phillipson on the extent of his knowledge of Village Roadshow's online content agreements, including with Apple iTunes Australia.

While he had "no [specific] knowledge of content being available through iTunes Australia", he agreed "in general terms" that it was.

Cobden then asked Phillipson whether he was "aware an arrangement was completed between iiNet and Roadshow Entertainment in last couple weeks" that licensed content from the studio's library for iiNet's freezone.

"No," Phillipson replied.

An iiNet spokesman said the licensed titles - which could be available in the freezone as early as this weekend - were predominately children's titles, including The Fairies, Saddle Club and the Wiggles.

A key part of iiNet's defence was the argument it encouraged only legal downloads over its network by offering a "freezone" of unmetered, legal content.

The case continues. You can follow the case in-full here. For a background on the case, click here.

Day Six: iiNet strikes licensing deal with Roadshow

9 comments in this discussion

"@All Well it looks like my opinion is in the minority! Boring world if we all agreed. Anyway, If you read my previous posts, I am more upset with iiNet getting a competitive advantage by not ..."

By Digger11

Tags

iinet, afact, roadshow, licensing, content, deal

iiTrial: High Court weighs ISP responsibilities

iiTrial: AFACT dismisses individual user suits

iiTrial: ISPs 'set up' by rights holders

iiTrial: Court mulls 'partially effective' ISP warnings

Breaking Stories

Roses Only goes with its heart for hosting

Bankwest credits IT for flat operating expenses

Conroy warns of cloud uncertainties

Hiring strategy vital to government IT transformation

Melbourne scientists ready 2013 bionic eye trial

Comments: 9

Lamby Oct 13, 2009 9:51 PM	Telstra can't tap our phones without a court order. Australia Post can't open our mail without a court order. The police cannot bug my house without a court order. Why would an ISP be allowed to view personal internet traffic for something as trivial as copyright infringement?
Digger11 Oct 14, 2009 12:29 PM	Why does everyone use analogies when trying to defend iiNet's allowing of illegal downloading ??? Trivial to you - not to shareholders of media companies. I may as well add my own analogy. If someone walked into your DVD store and started to walk out with 50 DVD's without paying - would you wait for a court order ??? thank-you
HesH Oct 14, 2009 12:59 PM	Do you remember way back when, a movie came out and then we had to wait almost 12 months for it to come out on DVD and then they slugged us almost $100 for a 50c DVD? Well now the table has turned, and their losing out. Maybe they should think about playing fair and then the rest of the would might join in?
greenie Oct 14, 2009 1:16 PM	@Digger11 the thing with your analogy is that you would then sue the maker of the car in which he person drove away in, for providing the person with the means to transport those goods when they try and go after the people who DL, that is fine, when they go after the means of transporting the data, that isnt =) the ISP's arent the people copying the movies... people who buy internet access from iinet are the ones doing it also, nothing is actually stolen per-se from AFACT, the only thing they are missing is potential sales of a DVD
Desk Oct 14, 2009 1:40 PM	@Digger11 - "If someone walked into your DVD store and started to walk out with 50 DVD's without paying - would you wait for a court order ???" No, you take down their details and refer those details to the police who will then question / make a case against that person which is then taken to court for a judge to decide if they are guity or not before being taken to prison. Using your analogy AFACT would hire bouncers to crash tackle the person trying to leave with their DVD's, arrest them and then instantly put them in prison without even checking to see if maybe they bought those DVD's elsewhere legally and has a receipt to prove it...
Sams Oct 14, 2009 4:45 PM	I suspect Digger11 gets confused between the "copy" and "move"operations on a PC.
anonymous Oct 14, 2009 5:45 PM	Digger11 uses a PC? Doesn't he have one of those nifty new 45rpm record changers (fully licenced of course)?
Lamby Oct 15, 2009 2:05 AM	@Digger11 You are confusing theft, which is a criminal offense (can be put into jail and get a criminal record) to copyright infringement, which is a civil offense (can only be fined for loss to the copyright holder.) BUT - I am not condoning the act of copyright infringement! I was trying to point out that what AFACT want iiNet to do to every single client would be illegal if you treat an ISP like the post office or a phone company - providing a 'pipe' to a service. It should be illegal for iiNet to infringe on my civil liberties by examining my internet traffic.
Digger11 Oct 15, 2009 11:35 AM	@All Well it looks like my opinion is in the minority! Boring world if we all agreed. Anyway, If you read my previous posts, I am more upset with iiNet getting a competitive advantage by not sending out the AFACT letters. Most ISP's (including the one I used to work for) knew that AFACT were sniffing around and the legal dept. advised all staff (particularly senior managers) to be very careful over how our home Internet connectiosn were being used. iiNet either had no clue (most likely) or just totally ignored the word on the street about this(they are a long way away from the east coast I suppose). I see this court case as one against iiNet in particular fro their vagrant disregard for the law. - but I do realise that it will effect how the whole industry reacts in the future though.