Day 20: AFACT snoops “arguably” committed crimes in iiNet probe

 

Reason for iiNet to forward notices to police.

ISP iiNet was justified in sending the film industry’s copyright notices to Western Australian Police because it was “strongly arguable” the notices were evidence of copyright crimes committed by investigators, the Federal Court heard today.

As the copyright case entered week five, iiNet’s lead barrister Richard Cobden told the court it was “very likely” that the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) investigators had engaged in criminal activity in their investigation of alleged copyright infringement on iiNet’s network.

This activity occurred despite film studio bosses telling the court under cross-examination that they would not sanction investigative techniques that could be classified as unlawful or that infringed the studio’s copyrights.

“It was a constant theme of the cross-examination of [iiNet chief regulatory officer Steven] Dalby that, by reason of absence of commercial scale of the activities, [the AFACT notices] could not possibly be of interest to the police, that [the notices] could not be [evidence of] a crime,” Cobden said.

“The problem with that, and that [AFACT investigators] would face, is it is strongly arguable that [the investigator’s actions] were crimes.”

Cobden said that section 132AJ(1) of the Copyright Act, it could be argued, prescribed an indictable offence that may have been committed by AFACT investigators in collating evidence.

The suggestion appeared to draw a wry grin from the film industry’s lead barrister Tony Bannon.

iiNet’s belief that the notices were evidence of crimes being committed would mean the ISP was justified in forwarding the AFACT notices to police, Cobden argued.

However, he believed it was “arguable whether a crime had been committed or not” due to lingering questions over whether the studios had in fact ‘licensed’ investigators to download all or parts of the films and TV shows covered by the case.

Cobden argued the fact that because a number of titles were added to a Motion Picture Association of America SharePoint site under the classification “cleared for Australian litigation” prior to the start of AFACT's investigation, there had been a licensing of the investigator’s activities.

“‘Cleared for Australian litigation’ plainly carries the notion that the films were ready [for investigation],” Cobden alleged.

“It’s clear the studios knew what the investigation involved - downloading pieces and entire copies of the films.”

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


Day 20: AFACT snoops “arguably” committed crimes in iiNet probe
 
 
 
Top Stories
Beyond ACORN: Cracking the infosec skills nut
[Blog post] Could the Government's cybercrime focus be a catalyst for change?
 
The iTnews Benchmark Awards
Meet the best of the best.
 
Telstra hands over copper, HFC in new $11bn NBN deal
Value of 2011 deal remains intact.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest articles on BIT Latest Articles from BIT
Xero prepares for key feature coming in 2015
Dec 19, 2014
Xero users will be able to track how their business is comparing to other Xero users.
More 4G from Optus in Darwin
Nov 21, 2014
Click to see where Optus has expanded coverage to the suburbs near Darwin.
Optus steps up regional 4G coverage
Nov 20, 2014
Once 700Mhz services are working, Optus claims regional users will have a "faster and more ...
This Huawei 4G phone costs $99
Nov 12, 2014
The $99 Huawei Ascend Y550, available through Vodafone, enters the budget market as one of the ...
4G smartphones: Microsoft's Lumia 830
Nov 7, 2014
Microsoft has announced its flagship Windows Phone, the Nokia Lumia 830 4G, will be available in ...
Latest Comments
Polls
Who do you trust most to protect your private data?







   |   View results
Your bank
  39%
 
Your insurance company
  4%
 
A technology company (Google, Facebook et al)
  8%
 
Your telco, ISP or utility
  8%
 
A retailer (Coles, Woolworths et al)
  3%
 
A Federal Government agency (ATO, Centrelink etc)
  19%
 
An Australian law enforcement agency (AFP, ASIO et al)
  14%
 
A State Government agency (Health dept, etc)
  6%
TOTAL VOTES: 1863

Vote
Do you support the abolition of the Office of the Information Commissioner?