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
AGL restructure sees CIO depart
Owen Coppage to leave after ten years.
 
Data: Advertising's best frenemy
STW Group's Tom Ceglarek faces a digital conundrum: he must feed his client's demand for performance insights while his industry is being undermined by data analysis.
 
Inside Telstra's multi-faceted cloud strategy
An overview of its own cloud and deals with Cisco, VMware, IBM and NextDC.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest articles on BIT Latest Articles from BIT
Small business win in a budget with 'fair' savings: Abbott
Apr 17, 2015
Tony Abbott has reaffirmed that the government’s aim is “always to get taxes ...
Xero now includes an inventory function built-in
Mar 26, 2015
Xero has added inventory and other major new features to the latest release of its cloud ...
Apple reveals its new MacBook
Mar 13, 2015
Replacing the MacBook Air as Apple's thinnest laptop, the new MacBook comes packed with features.
Xero has released a new version of its app for the iPad
Mar 6, 2015
iPad-wielding Xero users can now take advantage of a new version of the iOS app for the cloud ...
Microsoft is offering Azure for Disaster Recovery to Australian SMBs
Feb 10, 2015
If you haven't talked to your IT provider about disaster recovery, it might be worth discussing ...
Latest Comments
Polls
Do you support the Government's data retention scheme?

   |   View results
Yes
  11%
 
No
  89%
TOTAL VOTES: 2114

Vote