AFACT: iiNet appeals Court decision too

 

iiNet files Notice of Contention.

The film industry has branded iiNet's filing of a notice of contention against the Federal Court judgement in its copyright battle an "appeal" and an attempt by the ISP to sidestep legal responsibility while demanding protection from the law.

iTnews reported earlier this week ISP iiNet's intention to attempt to close any gaps in the Justice Dennis Cowdroy's ruling that might later be exploited by the film industry in a High Court appeal.

The ISP yesterday filed a Notice of Contention seeking to reaffirm the Court's decision to exonerate iiNet for the copyright infringing activities of its subscribers, and overturn two aspects that were not resolved in its favour.

iiNet hoped that the Notice of Contention would persuade the Court to confirm that it had not authorised any infringement of copyright by its subscribers.

Additionally, it sought to reverse Justice Cowdroy's finding that it could, in some circumstances, have used and disclosed information about its subscribers as the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) had demanded.

"No matter what spin they try to put on it, iiNet are appealing this judgment too," a spokesman for AFACT said.

"The court already found large scale copyright infringements, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them.

"iiNet wants all the protection of the law but none of the responsibility that comes with it," the spokesman said.

iiNet managing director Michael Malone said he was confident of iiNet's legal position.

"We go into this latest legal round anticipating we will come out in an even stronger position than when we won last month," he said in a statement.

"Justice Cowdroy's judgment was unequivocal and we are confident the Full Court will confirm his ruling and strengthen it."

AFACT appealed Justice Cowdroy's decision late last month, claiming that the judgement "left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers" and "represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy."


AFACT: iiNet appeals Court decision too
"If AFACT can prove that these customers are downloading illegal content then why haven't they taken this information to the police? They are better prepared to handle it and can punish the ..."
By ShaneWPlumb
 
 
 
Comments: 10
Rhino
Mar 19, 2010 12:23 PM
AFACT state "iiNet wants all the protection of the law but none of the responsibility that comes with it,"

And that's exactly what AFACT what, they want all the protection of the law, but without the responsibility of having it applied correctly.

Someone posted on another site "that's like saying police are responsible for crime because they know it's going and they can stop it". I think it's very true.
Digger11
Mar 19, 2010 2:22 PM
No, What AFACT want is for iiNet to stop allowing their customers to knowingly steal copyright material.

All of the other honest ISP's forwarded on the AFACT notices to their customers who were suspected of downloading stolen material - Malone and iiNet refused.

Fairly simple case.
FrankJackson
Mar 19, 2010 2:46 PM
Digger [All of the other honest ISP's forwarded on the AFACT notices to their customers who were suspected of downloading stolen material - Malone and iiNet refused.]

@Digger: No - I am only aware of Exetel taking steps to do this, most other ISP's only started after iiNet got taken to court.

I am totally against piracy, but feel trying to get ISP's to stop it will only drive it beyond their reach. a VPN proxy can cost you as little as US$5 per month ISP's cannot monitor these at all.
Mordd
Mar 19, 2010 3:04 PM
Digger11 said: All of the other honest ISP's forwarded on the AFACT notices to their customers who were suspected of downloading stolen material - Malone and iiNet refused.

Like Telstra, and Optus hey digger, oh wait, thatsd right, more than half the ISP's in australia had refused to pass on the notices, and Justice Cowdry specifically said in his finding as well that no ISP is obligated to pass on these notices since AFACT is not a statutory body in any way, they are a PR firm / lobby group, not an unbiased investigative authority, and even AFACT's relationship to the studio's who own the copyright is not completely clear in and of itself as came out in the evidence presented during the court case.

AFACT have litte ground to appeal but are doing so anyway as they must show they have exerted all legal avenues before asking Senator Conboy to act by introducing legislation instead. No surprise there. So iiNet are appealing themselves to try and prevent AFACT's appeal from succeeding. No surprise there either. Its just the normal legal tactics that play out in a case like this, and both sides need to stop pretending that what AFACT or iiNet are doing atm is in any way strange, its entirely expected by those in legal circles (note: im not suggesting im in those legal circles myself, just from what I have read since the case).
legless
Mar 19, 2010 3:46 PM
Once again Digger11 just likes stirring the pot to see what floats to the top.
legless
Mar 19, 2010 3:46 PM
Once again Digger11 just likes stirring the pot to see what floats to the top.
legless
Mar 19, 2010 3:51 PM
Once again Digger11 just likes stirring the pot to see what floats to the top.

"No, What AFACT want is for iiNet to stop allowing their customers to knowingly steal copyright material."

Maybe ski mask manufacturers should stop selling them because they know some people will use them while robbing banks. Drug companies should stop making drugs because some people are going to abuse them. A family should not be allowed to buy tyres ever again for its cars because their son used it as a getaway vehicle.
legless
Mar 19, 2010 3:53 PM
Apologies for the multiple entries. I don't know why it did that while I was typing.
cjc1959au
Mar 19, 2010 5:03 PM
AFACT are not, and never have been, in a position to demand that ISPs do anything.

They do not now, nor have they ever, approached the court (the only legal method available) to get a legal court document to provide to the ISP regarding "alleged piracy".

They are not even an entity that can represent the entire film industry. They are no more than a lobby group.

Their "notices" mean nothing. But rather than doing things legally, they would rather threaten an innocent ISP with these stupid notices. And waste all ISPs times dealing with them.

If AFACT really thinks it has a case against any particular ISPs client, then go to court and get a court order. Then they will be in a legal position to do something. Rather than wasting everyone's time and money.

Can Digger11 prove (and not bluster, but prove in a legal sense that a court will accept) that any client of any ISP downloads pirated data? No he can't and he knows it.

ShaneWPlumb
Mar 23, 2010 3:33 PM
If AFACT can prove that these customers are downloading illegal content then why haven't they taken this information to the police? They are better prepared to handle it and can punish the offenders more appropriately. I feel they haven't approached the police because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Getting people disconnected from their ISP still means they are free to try and obtain the material legally. Whereas if people are fined or arrested for accessing the content illegally means that person may be less likely to access that companies products.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Vito Forte: A CIO for tough times
Fortescue Metals CIO talks vendor management and innovation.
 
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Vodafone Australia churn nears half a million for 2011
British joint owners 'not pleased'.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Would you be concerned about your business' email data being hosted offshore?

   |   View results
Yes
  84%
 
No
  16%
TOTAL VOTES: 244

Vote