Video: AFACT demands Govt curb online piracy

By Brett Winterford, Munir Kotadia on Feb 4, 2010 12:59 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Hollywood needs time to consider an appeal.

iiNet CEO Michael Malone arrives at court with his entourage at exactly 9:30am.	The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), representing the film industry, was ...	iiNet CEO Michael Malone said the case proved that AFACT's approach had "wasted a year" and not ...
See all pictures here »

Representatives from the film industry have called on the Federal Government to step in to police online piracy after losing a vital civil battle with ISP iiNet in the Federal Court today.

As reported live from the courtroom by iTnews.com.au, Justice Dennis Cowdroy found that Australia's No.3 internet provider did not authorise copyright infringement on its network.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), representing the film industry, was ordered to pay iiNet's costs, estimated at $4 million.

"Today's decision is very disappointing for the film industries who launched the case and for the 50,000 Australians who are employed in the Australian film industry," said the federation's executive director Neil Gane (pictured).

"We believe this decision was based on a technical finding centred on the court's interpretation of how infringement's occur and the ISP's ability to control them. iiNet accepted the evidence we provided as legitimate proof of copyright infringement on their network."

Gane asked that the Federal Government step in where its litigation failed.

In the weeks leading up to the trial, Federal Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy said he was "watching the case with interest". He said the outcome would "inform" the Government's policy decisions.

In July, the Minister promised he would find a solution to the problem of online piracy.

"It's well recognised by Government that it is a problem," Gane said today. "We are confident that going forward, Government policy will not be supporting an outcome which allows for the continued, rampant and unaddressed infringements that are occurring across the internet."

Despite the comprehensive iiNet victory, Gane left open appealling.

"We are not ruling anything in or out," he said. "We will now take the time to review the decision before making comments going forward."

10 comments in this discussion

"@Oddy It's been said a million times before, but I'll say it again. Just because someone downloads a movie, does not mean that if they could not have gotten it for free that they would have paid ..."

By Desk

Tags

iinet, afact, piracy, federal, government, copyright, iitrial, bittorrent neil

iiTrial costs back before Federal Court

iiTrial: AFACT dismisses individual user suits

iiTrial: Court mulls 'partially effective' ISP warnings

'Authorisation' a lost opportunity in AFACT appeal

Breaking Stories

UXC lands Fortescue, Rio Tinto comms work

Federal agencies game ICT project reviews

NBN Co orders long-term satellites

Windows 8: Develop once for desktop and mobile

Cisco to replace sparky UCS blade

Comments: 10

Ace Feb 4, 2010 1:21 PM	"...iiNet accepted the evidence we provided as legitimate proof of copyright infringement on their network..." Clearly have still to figure out that the internet does not belong to iiNet. "Networks don't copy files, people copy files". This should be the new ISP slogan (as in the "Guns don't kill people..." chant of the NRA).
BrettWinterford Feb 4, 2010 1:53 PM	Ace - that's magic. I might just have to tweet it.
anonymous Feb 4, 2010 5:49 PM	Yes, and it sounds like perhaps some very expensive (and rich) lawyers are trying to cover their Armani-clad arses. . .
DJ Feb 4, 2010 7:53 PM	So, let me get this right.......... 1. The movie industry makes how many billions from entertainment each year. 2. They employ 50,000 Australians (that is great and I support that). 3. The movie industry has fallen behind in terms of securing their asset or product. 4. The movie industry now wants (insert_other_industry_here) to fix their flaws, police potential copyright infringers, and basically protect their revenue streams. Now this guy from AFACT is calling on the Police to crack down on copyright infringement. No thanks pal. I pay taxes and I don't want my hard earned tax dollars feeding the police to protect your revenue streams. Police are there to uphold the law, but public safety and public interests come first, not films or entertainment. Go figure out your own way to protect revenue streams, like the rest of us. It's bad enough we are now paying $100 to take the family to a cinema, when DVDs are $3 a night and Foxtel let's me do it from my armchair. Get with the program.
Johnny Feb 4, 2010 9:13 PM	TO AFACT: SO YOU WANT TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT THE 50,000 AUSTRALIANS WORKING FOR YOU, BY WASTING MONEY TRYING TO WIN AND UNWINNABLE CASE? WASTING 4 MILLION DOLLARS WHICH COULD BE USED TO HELP NEW ARTISTS? LOOK WHERE THAT GOT YOUR ORGANISATION? NOW YOUR DOWN ~4 MILLION DOLLARS. I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR FILMS MUSIC OR ANYTHING ANYMORE IF I KNOW IT SUPPORTS YOU PEOPLE AFACT, THIS IS THE SAD TRUTH AND IT HAPPENED IN AMERICA, THEN THE MPAA AND RIAA MODIFIED IT'S TACTICS. YOU NEED TO EMBRACE THE INTERNET, NOT DESTROY IT, YOU BY TAKING ON IINET HAVE THREATENED THE EXISTENCE OF THE INTERNET IN AUSTRALIA FOR WHICH I AM DEEPLY OFFENDED AS IT HAS BECOME AN INFINITE POOL OF INTERNET WHICH NOBODY CAN CONTROL, FREE SPEECH IS ONLY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET. I love caps it gets the message through to the dinosaurs.
rycrozier Feb 4, 2010 11:28 PM	Four million minimum... that's just iiNet's costs. Theirs would be considerably higher than that again one would imagine, as their legal team was considerably larger than iiNet's. edit- spelling. Edited by rycrozier: 4/2/2010 11:30:14 PM
Mark D Feb 5, 2010 9:24 AM	Ah no I would rather not have my Taxes go to the police to protect their revenue stream. Knowing the labour party they will no doubt put our country further into debt in order to protect another countries revenue stream. Ridiculous. Lets enact laws to protect McDonalds revenue stream while we are at it.
Rhino Feb 5, 2010 10:15 PM	"iiNet accepted the evidence we provided as legitimate proof of copyright infringement on their network" That's correct, but at no time did they ever authorize it. And that is where their case fell apart. The transport authorities around Australia know that their roads are being used for speeding, but they never authorize it.
Oddy Feb 8, 2010 9:48 AM	You of course realise the film industry has now 'legitimately' lost revenue, before it was an estimation based on exaggerated numbers of copyright infringements. Now they have a real reason to try and claim some damages... this won't be over by a long shot.
Desk Feb 8, 2010 11:01 AM	@Oddy It's been said a million times before, but I'll say it again. Just because someone downloads a movie, does not mean that if they could not have gotten it for free that they would have paid for it. (not saying that it is either right or wrong to do it either...)