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
Inside the stalemate on Australia's piracy code
Still not registered almost five months on.
 
IT staff outline deep anger in Macquarie Uni survey
‘Morale at lowest point in a decade’.
 
Cost blowout to push NBN past $41bn budget
But government funding cap to remain.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest articles on BIT Latest Articles from BIT
Say goodbye to OneDrive Groups
Aug 28, 2015
If you've a) actually been using OneDrive and b) gone so far as to actually have been using ...
Libreoffice 5 review
Aug 24, 2015
It's free! It's open! But does LibreOffice deliver on its promise of a powerful office suite for ...
How to disable Cortana in Windows 10
Aug 21, 2015
Stop Microsoft's personal assistant snooping around.
Uni is optional: 5 tech leaders without a degree
Aug 17, 2015
Already running a business, but thinking about going back to uni? From Bill Gates to Steve Jobs, ...
New features coming to Xero
Aug 17, 2015
Use Xero? Here are some of the things you can look forward to in the coming months.
Latest Comments
Polls
New Windows 10 users, are you upgrading from...




   |   View results
Windows 8
  47%
 
Windows 7
  44%
 
Windows XP
  5%
 
Another operating system
  3%
 
Windows Vista
  2%
TOTAL VOTES: 708

Vote