Bannon won't front AFACT's iiNet appeal

Jul 29, 2010 1:17 PM
Tags: tony bannon | afact | film | industry | iinet | appeal | copyright | case

New barrister named.

The film industry's star barrister Tony Bannon will not lead the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft's (AFACT) appeal against ISP iiNet in the Federal Court next week.

AFACT lodged a last minute appeal against a Federal Court judgement in February which had exonerated iiNet for the copyright infringing activities of its subscribers.

The film industry's case hinges on 15 grounds, according to appeal documents.

Bannon - who became known in the case for his vigorous cross-examination of iiNet chief Michael Malone - was understood to be preparing to front a different appeal case starting the following week.

It was understood that Bannon remained on the film industry's legal team but was unlikely to appear in person.

David Catterns QC would instead front the film industry's appeal. Catterns is a specialist in IP, appellate and administrative law.

A spokesman for iiNet told iTnews that its barrister representation was unchanged. Richard Cobden SC will lead the ISP's appeal submissions.

The appeal starts next week. Stay tuned to iTnews for full coverage from the court.

For a complete history of the case, click here.


  • Email a Friend
  • Print Page
Bannon won't front AFACT's iiNet appeal
"It would be difficult, but a boycott of the worst of the AFACT (I like @anonymous typo better) players would drive the point home. Why aren't some of the ICT population making comparisons with ..."
 
 
Comments: 3
Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.
Ezy2Confuze
Jul 29, 2010 2:46 PM
So when they lose this appeal with their high priced IP specialist leading the charge, will they cry poor and try to have iiNet pay their legal bills again?
anonymous
Jul 29, 2010 7:21 PM

Dunno about the "poor" bit, considering that AFART appears to be a front for some of the wealthiest content corporations.

But they may seek to impose maximum cost and disruption on iiNet if they again fail to make good much their case and win significant parts of their assault on the ISP.
Pilotyoda
Aug 1, 2010 1:06 PM
It would be difficult, but a boycott of the worst of the AFACT (I like @anonymous typo better) players would drive the point home.

Why aren't some of the ICT population making comparisons with Common Carrier laws:
Australia Post, the phone companies, Federal and State Roads and Rail Authorities (including private toll companies) and shipping companies are nOT responsible for the illegal activities of the users. The users are responsible for breaking the law.
Or should Vic Roads (or the minister - ha) be prosecuted because someone puts drugs, fireworks or xxx videos in their boot and drives from Canberra to Melbourne?
Comment:
Want to participate in the discussion?
Or log in now to comment
 
 
 
Top Stories
NBN3 Wireless plan needs 4G spectrum fast-track
Dark fibre and wireless coalition issues new proposal.
 
Server patch blamed for Westpac outage
Back-up processes keep business customers online.
 
iTnews asks: Can a caretaker Government sign ACTA?
How Australia's political uncertainty could impact global negotiations.
 

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
"No, just something for readers who are also AAPT customers and might have wondered what all ..."
by rycrozier Sep 3, 2010 7:52 AM
 
"the whole campaign is whack"
by nicko Sep 3, 2010 7:26 AM
 
"Where's the clause preventing them from surrendering information to police should… I don't know… ..."
by ITrant Sep 3, 2010 7:22 AM
 
"@RB Im sure we can squeeze in an investment which will actually return much greater benefits to ..."
by ptconsult Sep 2, 2010 10:00 PM
 
"Don't kid yourself - yesterday (1 Sept) a Western Australian judge made it legal for Wilson ..."
by frances Sep 2, 2010 7:18 PM
Polls
Was sacking four Victorian police officers for inappropriate email use too harsh?

   |   View results
Yes
  52%
 
No
  48%
TOTAL VOTES: 81

Vote