Telco/ISP

Day 22: iiNet copyright case wraps up in Federal Court

"I don’t understand why we as individuals are not concerned about the amount of information the movie industry appears to have about our individual habits. I have always been concerned that the ..."

By netizen

AFACT v iiNet: The judgement in full

iiNet wins! Film industry's case torn to shreds

Update: iiNet copyright case decision next week

Day 20: iiNet can’t vet AFACT copyright allegations

Breaking Stories

Vividwireless reveals five-city expansion plans

Microsoft denies Windows 7 battery problems

Ex-Intel executive owns up to insider trading

Optus to boost HFC network up to 100 Mbps

Microsoft launches Surface, unveils partners and customers

By Ry Crozier

Nov 27, 2009 9:41 AM

Legal teams were “comprehensive”.

ISP iiNet will make a further three-page written submission to the Federal Court responding to submissions by the film industry it says “seriously mischaracterise” the ISP’s evidence.

The copyright case between the Perth-based ISP and the film industry wrapped up in Sydney yesterday after almost five weeks of hearings.

The film industry’s lead barrister Tony Bannon took the presiding judge Dennis Cowdroy through part of the studio’s 403-page reply to iiNet’s 300-odd pages of closing submissions.

iiNet’s lead barrister Richard Cobden sought leave from Justice Cowdroy to prepare a short response - he estimated “two-to-three pages at absolute most” - to the film industry’s latest closing submissions.

The brief paper was expected to cover any new material raised by the film industry, including its 120-page submission on what constituted a ‘substantial part’ of a film or TV show “and a couple of other areas that seriously mischaracterise the evidence" given by iiNet, according to Cobden.

Justice Cowdroy granted Cobden leave to file a brief response by December 4. He granted the film industry a further week to respond to the brief document.

In closing, Justice Cowdroy said: “I must say I have been greatly assisted by the legal teams of both parties.

“I don’t think there’s anything that has not been covered comprehensively.

“I will endeavour to deliver a judgement as soon as possible.”

But he said it “would not be this year.”

The case was adjourned. iiNet chief executive Michael Malone provided iTnews with a video statement after the case closed here.

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

Comments: 12

Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.

Rhino Nov 27, 2009 5:39 PM	I want to take this opportunity to thank itNews, and Ry Crozier for their awesome coverage of this issue. It certainly has opened up some lively discussion. Thanks Guys.
TruthSphere Nov 27, 2009 8:21 PM	Yes thank you Ry your articles are very will written and informative. Out of all the news sites ITNews seems to see the importance in this case most - and I love the ability to just hit that big red button on the right to see what i've missed. The articles don't seem biased so I'd actually like to hear Ry's personal opinion.
deonast Nov 28, 2009 2:08 AM	Yes I'd also like to thank Ry Crozier, certainly unbiased reporting and I've been coming back to read more everyday. You could be reporting on a landmark case with far wider implications.
hellfire Nov 28, 2009 7:30 AM	We will all anniously wait for the sequel as regardless of the outcome this will end up with an appeal to the High Court wasting much more money before a final decision is made in this matter. What a waste of money when the obvious answer is that the copyright holder is responsible to police their copyright and should not expect this job to be done free of charge for them by a third party.
PeterA Nov 28, 2009 8:42 AM	I don't even understand how it got to court when they have no standing whatsoever. I don't know who should struck off the practice register for inputting negligent, misleading assertions, that were dismantled in a few US cases & recycled. Current account deficit and Greenhouse gas emissions will rise if everyone switches over to fully encrypted by subscription servers in 3rd countries. British law enforcement have said this will be a very bad outcome, as it will cause everything to go encrypted.
Slatts Nov 28, 2009 1:19 PM	hellfire wrote: We will all anniously wait for the sequel Does that mean with our bums clenched?
©commentator Nov 28, 2009 4:38 PM	hellfire, I would have thought that you, and others, would have realised by now that there is not an obvious answer to the question raised by this case. This is a difficult issue that is being grappled with by governments and courts all around the world. This is the first time that the Australian Copyright Act provisions relating to ISPs have been fully tested in the courts. For various reasons, pursuing individual copyright infringers is often not feasible, including the fact that they can't be found, that they're not in the jurisdiction, that they don't have any assets etc. Governments and courts are increasingly recognising that ISPs have to shoulder some of the responsibility for this problem. The question is, to what degree? Another thing...If the judgment in this case is appealed by the loser it will go to the Full Federal Court, not the High Court. The High Court is the third (and final) round of appeal but there is no automatic right to appeal to the High Court - special leave has to be granted.
Mordd Nov 28, 2009 5:32 PM	I too would like to thank Ry Crozier for his unbiased and factual reporting of the case, the reports here in ITNews give a comprehensive history of the case and its developments and provides far wider coverage of the issues than any other reporting I can find on the case. Keep up the excellent work ITNews.
Sams Nov 29, 2009 8:42 PM	©commentator: "For various reasons, pursuing individual copyright infringers is often not feasible, including the fact that they can't be found, that they're not in the jurisdiction, that they don't have any assets etc. Governments and courts are increasingly recognising that ISPs have to shoulder some of the responsibility for this problem." You seem to be saying that "pursuing individual copyright infringers is often not feasible" implies that "ISPs have to shoulder some of the responsibility for this problem". I don't see the latter following from the former any more than Australia Post sharing the responsibility for terrorists sending anthrax spores in the mail. Can you please explain your logic here?
pete123 Nov 30, 2009 10:23 AM	Australia Post would take responsibility for anthrax, as they would illegal drugs. I think that's comparable to an ISP taking action through virus scanning on emails and blocking worms. There are laws which will permit mail to be opened and checked by authorised agents if they suspect something like that is being posted. If you taped some songs off of the radio and posted the audio cassette and the postman removed your letterbox, that would be comparable to what AFACT are asking.
Sams Nov 30, 2009 10:42 AM	pete123: "Australia Post would take responsibility for anthrax, as they would illegal drugs." No, they wouldn't, and they don't.
netizen Jan 4, 2010 11:38 PM	I don’t understand why we as individuals are not concerned about the amount of information the movie industry appears to have about our individual habits. I have always been concerned that the government collects information, but the idea of a corporation like the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft Limited can breach section seven (7) and section one hundred and eight (108) of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 without consequence, who are the laws meant to protect?