Day 12: iiNet has no written repeat infringer policy

By Ry Crozier on Nov 3, 2009 4:47 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Film industry questions whether any policy exists.

ISP iiNet's chief Michael Malone admitted that iiNet has no written policy on what to do about repeat infringers of copyright on its network.

The film industry's senior counsel Tony Bannon brought before the Federal Court copyright infringement policies allegedly downloaded from the websites of ISPs People Telecom, Netspace, iPrimus and Beagle Internet.

"We've been through a number of different published sites of ISPs and seen what their copyright infringement policies [were]," Bannon put to Malone.

"Is there any reason why iiNet, if it has a copyright infringement policy, would want to keep it a secret from copyright owners, the general public, the press or customers?"

"No," Malone stated.

"You won't find a page [on the iiNet website] which sets out iiNet's repeat infringer policy?" Bannon quizzed.

"No," Malone stated.

"That would be because you don't have one?" Bannon asked.

"No, that's not correct," Malone alleged.

"Why is it a big secret? Why don't you publish it on your website?" Bannon pressed.

"[Because] we haven't been provided with a case of a repeat infringer," Malone alleged.

"Did you just hear what you just said Mr Malone? That the reason you haven't published a policy is because you haven't had a repeat infringer. Would you like to think about that for a moment?" Bannon asked.

"No sir," Malone stated.

Bannon accused Malone of treating the proceedings as "some [sort of] game", a suggestion Malone denied.

"You have a repeat infringer policy? What is it?" Bannon asked again.

"If someone is found to infringe on multiple occasions we may disconnect them," Malone responded.

"It's not actually written down anywhere, don't you agree?" Bannon claimed.

"Yes," Malone confirmed.

Bannon accused Malone of having the policy "in his head". Malone later alleged iiNet chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby was also "in on the policy".

Bannon then accused Malone of changing the policy "depending on how many times I keep asking the question".

"I suggest to you over the last couple of days you've come up with slightly varying answers in setting out what is in policy?" Bannon alleged.

He withdrew an offer to verbally run through all the alleged variances using Federal Court transcripts.

But Bannon continued to press Malone on specific details of iiNet's repeat infringer policy.

"You don't have a repeat infringer policy do you?" Bannon again posed to Malone.

"The policy would be if someone was found to have infringed on multiple occasions that we'd take action," Malone alleged.

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

Day 12: iiNet has no written repeat infringer policy

8 comments in this discussion

"yes Digger11 - indeed I must be 5 yrs old compared to your very mature and sensible trolling and ad hominem attacks. /end sarcasm however feel free to troll, turf and shill away for AFACT as ..."

By KJ

Tags

iinet, afact, repeat, infringer, policy, copyright, malone, bannon

iiTrial: AFACT dismisses individual user suits

iiTrial: Court mulls 'partially effective' ISP warnings

Rights holders vetted in ISP copyright plan

'Authorisation' a lost opportunity in AFACT appeal

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: 8

Jahm Mitt Nov 3, 2009 10:58 PM	I think Malone has a point; The people from RFUKT are simply trying to fast track their legal buck passing, on a wholesale basis onto the ISP's., thereby placing the ISP's into breaches of privacy, breaches of contract etc., without a summary judgment and court order based upon facts and evidence. The sleazes from RFUKT seem to be trying to get away with their trying to whine at ISP's on a wholesale basis, as a cheap and easy method of stopping alleged piracy; by trying to get the customers disconnected, rather than follow due lawful process on an allegation by allegation basis. And RFUKT and it's constituent members, when it comes to greed, control and honesty - they leave a whole lot to be desired.
Digger11 Nov 4, 2009 8:30 AM	Malone has the policy in his head ??? Nice professional organisation this iiNet mob are. Why can't Malone just admit he is guilty ??? He is sounding more and more like Basil Fawlty who just cannot say the words "sorry".
dalboz Nov 4, 2009 10:41 AM	Digger, this case is way bigger than proving one man's "guilt" or even a company's guilt for that matter. AFACT have just picked on iiNet because their lawyers have determined they will be the easiest to take down and set a precedent for Australian law.
KJ Nov 4, 2009 10:48 AM	@Digger11 boy oh boy you are truly a well paid astroturfing troll aren't you. Paid by AFACT I guess. @IPFarmer The difference is in the definition of what "theft" is. Theft under old common law is the act of depriving someone of something physical. A download copy is thus not theft because there is no deprivation of anything. Secondly copyright is a right granted by the government to individuals who produce content to allow them to benefit from their work. This right is given solely at the whim of our elected parliament and is not a "moral" right of ownership. Industry bodies like AFACT have managed to extend copyright from originally 25 years to 70 years after death unless it was before 1955 (in Australia). Who benefits exactly from that? Not the original content creator that is for sure. If I whistle a tune, or sing Happy Birthday, lend a book to you to read is that theft ? No, but they could all be called copyright infringement. The moves by AFACT are in effect in my view an attempt to change the law via precedent so that copyright infringement of any sort becomes criminal. This is to protect the "old" business model of the media conglomerates in the modern digital age before they become irrelevant. P2P sharing is in effect the same as lending books or discs to people. Just more efficient. Under the law AFACT needs to undertake a civil prosecution of each individual they suspect. However they prefer to attempt to change the law to make the ISP's their policemen. Much easier to prosecute and tax - sorry license a few thousand ISP's rather than the majority of the population. Much of the prosecution huff and puff is to attempt to disguise the fact they have no actual case. Why did they did not pick on Telstra or Google ? iinet = Large but far easier target. This case is absolute bunkum, but by practising FUD and the help of paid astroturfers (see Digger) above they hope to prevail. Regradless of this lawsuit they have about as much chance as a snowcone in hell. DPI is not proof against crypto and other methods. P2P is a genie well and truly out of the bottle. The "middlemen" will slowly lose their big profits, they are after all just gouging distribution networks.
Digger11 Nov 4, 2009 2:49 PM	@dalboz, Incorrect, they picked on iiNet because they didn't even bother to forward the AFACT notices onto their customers (Malone clearly getting a competitive advantage over the law abiding competitors). As I have stated in previous posts, most of us in the Industry new that AFACT were snooping around and ensured compliance - Malone and his cowboy management team were either blind to this, or possibly thought they were above the law. I still think a class action by the other ISP's could be on the cards if Malone losers this case - as is looking more and more likely every day. @KJ - I'm not even responding to your rubbish, other than it takes the brain of a 5 year old to call someone a troll because you don't agree with their opinion.
shion Nov 4, 2009 5:05 PM	@Digger11 so to say telstra is law abiding and is forwarding all these notices to AFP? so i want to see a law suit carried out by the AFACT on australia's largest ISP. while they are at it why not sue Optus.
Sams Nov 5, 2009 12:22 AM	Digger11: "didn't even bother to forward the AFACT notices onto their customers (Malone clearly getting a competitive advantage over the law abiding competitors" You falsely implying that iiNet is legally obligated to forward such notices. Furthermore, you are directly implying that iiNet is not law abiding ... in a public forum. Good luck with that.
KJ Nov 5, 2009 2:01 PM	yes Digger11 - indeed I must be 5 yrs old compared to your very mature and sensible trolling and ad hominem attacks. /end sarcasm however feel free to troll, turf and shill away for AFACT as many others watching this case have also called it. ps my post here is also way out of context I admit as I posted against wrong thread (doh).