Conroy to closely examine iiNet verdict

Send to a friend Print
Renai LeMay04 February 2010, 5:40 PM

Pro-censorship Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says he will examine what the failure of the AFACT lawsuit against iiNet means for the industry.


Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has issued a brief statement in relation to the iiNet trial verdict handed this morning, saying the Federal Government will look into its details.

“The Government will examine the Federal Court’s decision in the AFACT/iiNet case and will consider what the implications for the industry are,” Conroy said.

Justice Cowdroy today handed iiNet a sound victory in the Australian ISP’s long-running battle against a coalition of film and television studios, finding that iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement carried out by its customers using the BitTorrent file-sharing platform.

Conroy’s response today has been particularly anticipated by the telecommunications sector due to the fact AFACT executive director Neil Gane appeared to appeal to government intervention in the issue of how copyright infringement should be dealt with.

“We are confident that the Government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network,” Gane in a statement, speaking on behalf of the organisation and the film and TV studios who brought the action.

The biggest problem for copyright holders at present is that they can't easily access the contact details of people who are caught pirating content through protocols like BitTorrent, which advertise their IP address, but nothing else. ISPs do not give up the details of which customer was using what IP address at particular times without a court order.

One reform the government could make would be to make it easier for copyright owners to access customers' details, which could result in a slew of lawsuits against individuals, as previously seen in the United States.

Conroy has previously commented on the trial.

For example, in March 2009, the Minister said iiNet’s defence was like something which “belongs in a Yes, Minister episode”, referring to the famously bureaucratic television series.

Delimiter with additional reporting by Dan Warne.


Post your comment



Comments

 RSS feed Email alert

itd (User):

Conroy to closely examine iiNet verdict

Conroy should examine his own stupid decisions rather than comment on other sound decisions.

04 February 2010, 6:26 PM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting itd:
Conroy should examine his own stupid decisions rather than comment on other sound decisions.

Conroy should be aware we are judging him upon his decisions. You've spent $30M Steven where are the high speed broadband connections?


04 February 2010, 8:43 PM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

Making details of an IP address owner available to anyone would be about as sane as allowing police records to be searchable by the public... It would be handy if you need to find out something, but the huge problems it would cause far outweigh any benefits.

04 February 2010, 6:36 PM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Aubrey (Advanced member):

This man is accumulating so many self-inflicted wounds he should be locked away for his own safety (and ours). If there was any justice in the world, he would be sharing a room with former Communications Ministers and Michael Atkinson.

But I seriously believe that we have not seen the last of this issue by a long chalk. The Free Trade Agreement with the US (and sheer commercial interest) will mean that AFACT will have some very heavy artillery to bring to bear. Do not be surprised if "necessary amendments" are brought before Parliament very soon.

04 February 2010, 9:15 PM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

Quoting Aubrey:
Do not be surprised if "necessary amendments" are brought before Parliament very soon.

Well if "necessary amendments" are brought in, we will have to vote with our.... votes



04 February 2010, 11:00 PM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Aubrey:
The Free Trade Agreement with the US (and sheer commercial interest) will mean that AFACT will have some very heavy artillery to bring to bear.

How exactly does free trade have anything to do with this, other than via the aforementioned commercial interests? But then I guess how does signing over a whole bunch of nation rights have anything to do with free trade either?

The world gets curiouser and curiouser when we have a communications minister whose main aim is to stifle communications.

Then again Conroy could be lobbying Hollywood for a gig as the new Chaplin, he has a good chance. have you ever seen a sadder clown with a talent for slapstick disaster? And after all Sen Steven will be looking for a new job in the next few months.



05 February 2010, 12:07 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Aubrey (Advanced member):

Quoting Raindog:
How exactly does free trade have anything to do with this,


The FTA essentially locks us into US Intellectual Property "standards". If the US Gov doesn't like the outcome, they will "ask" us to fix it. The whole "piracy" issue is very front and centre with them and they are prepared to use whatever influence they need to "resolve" these issue.

But if this (like the filter) require legislation, the Senate comes into play and the policies of both the Coalition and the Greens become relevant. The Greens will certainly oppose but the Coalition's position is anyone's guess (given it was they that signed away our national sovereignty in this area initially). I assume they'll oppose any Govt. amendment because, well, that's what they do. Might provide some breathing space - but I doubt it'll be brought on before election anyway.

05 February 2010, 7:30 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Aubrey:
The FTA essentially locks us into ... blah, blah, blah.

Oh I'm well aware of all that, I'm just at a loss to workout what the hell these the portions of an FTA have to do with free trade? It's a bit like trying to understand how electric cars are supposed to remove (not relocate) carbon pollution.


Quoting Aubrey:
If the US Gov doesn't like the outcome, they will "ask" us to fix it. The whole "piracy" issue is very front and centre with them

I guess that the sum result of what happens to the nations silly enough vote for celebrities ahead of talent. A trend that worryingly has begun here.
News for you Australia, ex ABC hacks with a skill for serious looks, journos past their use by, and 80's rock stars who've lost their mojo are not the best choices for elected representatives. You might have liked that Maxine from the TV, or bought somebodies first 2 albums before you finished high school but as history has proven it has not made them capable politicians.


Quoting Aubrey:
But if this (like the filter) require legislation, the Senate comes into play and the policies of both the Coalition and the Greens become relevant.

And that my friend is democracy, and the only reason why Cardboard Kev has not spent every dollar in the nation and more. Never will you see a better example of why a two level government structure is essential. Unfortunately Australia has tiers which is far from essential even if it does create job for legions more talentless people.


Quoting Aubrey:
but I doubt it'll be brought on before election anyway.

Sensible government, has the skills to keep these things perpetually in process without ever implementing them, but as Sen Steve's actions are testament, we don't currently have anything like sensible government.




05 February 2010, 10:00 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Senior member):

Conroy will undoubtedly closely examine this legal decision, then consider what is good sense and what is in the best interests of Australia and its people . . . then do exactly the opposite!

05 February 2010, 8:52 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

BrownieBoy (User):

Conroy can hurrumph all he wants. There's nothing he can do about it though. He can't overrule the courts, much as he undoubtedly would like to.
He can, of course, help pass even more draconian laws than the ones that he's already intending (which is saying something). In the end though, that will only hasten his own well-deserved trip to the unemployment queue. The Australian public is nowhere near as apathetic and stupid as he thinks.

05 February 2010, 12:00 PM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

apt.pupil (Advanced member):

Quoting BrownieBoy:
The Australian public is nowhere near as apathetic and stupid as he thinks.

stupid is not the right way to word it.

interested would be better. Until recently- people have not given 2 tosses of salad how bad the Australian systems actually are.
I can give Kevin747 this bit of credit for all the time he has spent in Australia: Since he took over the show, people are starting to notice the flaws in our country



05 February 2010, 12:16 PM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Aubrey (Advanced member):

Quoting BrownieBoy:
The Australian public is nowhere near as apathetic and stupid as he thinks.

Have you watched any Australian TV lately?

And I have seen nothing to suggest that Conroy's (very bad) performance in his portfolio is having any real impact on public opinion - although the $30M tender fiasco will probably stick (His attack on the very people who tried to stop him ranks as new low for me). Politics works at a much more superficial level than most of us could possibly imagine. The actual merits, morality or public benefit in what they do or say is fairly irrelevant to outcomes (I would hold up the current federal opposition as proof if they weren't also so irrelevant).


05 February 2010, 2:24 PM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Not signed in
anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags