iiNet piracy case starts in Federal Court

Send to a friend Print

Help more people find out about this story

Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon

Angus Kidman18 December 2008, 12:21 AM

iiNet says it will vigorously defend itself against AFACT's claims that it authorised piracy among its users, but the case looks set to be a long battle.


The courtroom battle between iiNet and a consortium of movie studios over whether the ISP is responsible for BitTorrent piracy looks set to rage for some time to come, with the next court hearing not set until February.

As APC reported last month, iiNet has been taken to court by a group of local and international studios for allegedly failing to disconnect users said to be involved in exchanging copyright material over the Internet.

A directions hearing was held at the Federal Court in Sydney before Justice Cowdroy today. Such hearings are typically used to establish a future court calendar, and ZDNet Australia reports the two parties have agreed to return to court on February 6. Both sides are being represented by high-profile law firms: Herbert Geer for iiNet, and Gilbert & Tobin for the respondents.

As we foreshadowed in our original report, a key element in iiNet's defence is its longstanding commitment to making copyrighted content legally available.

"iiNet is leading the industry by making legal content available in our ever-growing Media Lounge, in association with the rights owners," a statement from the company issued just prior to the hearing noted.

Another key point of dispute is whether sufficient evidence of alleged offences was provided by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), which represents the rights holders. "The law currently provides a process for investigating copyright theft or any other illegal activity using the internet," iiNet's statement said. "AFACT did not use this process."

Despite that, the outcome of the case remains far from certain, with legal experts divided over how largely untested online copyright laws might be interpreted.


Post your comment



Comments

 RSS feed Email alert

Your Average Joe (Senior member):

Come on iiNet ! ........ I'll be rootin' for ya !

18 December 2008, 9:22 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

plutonium210 (Advanced member):

Lets see how far iiNet can stick it to THE MAN !

18 December 2008, 9:26 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

AtticusFinch (User):

I have read some of the initial claims and submissions presented and it would look like that AFACTS has quite a case, with a better than 50/50 chance of being successful !

It would seem that the best defence for iiNet is to be as transparent as legally possible. They seem to have been doing the 'right' thing.

I do hope that iiNet are successful in their defence because a win for AFACTS can only have a domino effect for others ! ..... And that's not a good thing.

18 December 2008, 9:34 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

"Copyright theft" - Agghhhhhggg... I wish people wouldn't call it that!

It's "copyright infringement", damn it! You can't steal a right.

18 December 2008, 9:41 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

pmx (User):

Call it what you like. The end result is theft.

18 December 2008, 10:36 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

No... It isn't. Not in a dictionary sense or a legal sense.
Theft is to take something tangible from someone. Copyright infringement is ignoring someone's right to control their intellectual property.

And they aren't stealing money from the vendor either. For starters, who says the "pirate" was going to pay for it if they couldn't pirate? Or what's to say they don't go and buy it if they enjoyed it?

18 December 2008, 10:42 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

DFTBA (User):

PMX, In the criminal law, theft (also known as filching) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent, resulting in the loss of the original item to the person. By this definition you can not refer to copy right infringement as theft, because hollywood would still have the original.

19 December 2008, 3:31 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting pmx:
Call it what you like. The end result is theft.

Only thing for it is censor the Internet, right? The work of a puritanical warrior sure is a full time job.

I'll put the whole issue another way in regard to the whole issue and particularly in regard the out come of this case. "I've done nothing wrong, why should I potentially be punished, to aid Hollywood?"


19 December 2008, 6:58 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Halcon (Cornerstone member):

The movie and the Music industry are a bunch of greedy bastards, they are taking on a soft target, because the can't fight with the so called "pirates".
They don't want to get paid by the use of online advertisements, with this method they can generate an income that will benefit them.
Is totally ridiculous to say that with the download of the songs and other content has reduced their income.
Music CDs and Movies are still expensive, some of them cost premium, if these products were lowered in price may people would buy them.
If these big bullies not adapt to the digital age, they will keep losing money, it is much better to offer these products to a price everyone can afford, (people will buy more when there is a good value, that's for sure) and let the Internet alone.

18 December 2008, 1:20 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Henry Chim (User):

C'mon, how can you sue an internet provider that hosts bittorrent files of Linux on an FTP server? Is that illegal now? Is is so wrong to host free games and software like Sourceforge?

18 December 2008, 6:41 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Not signed in
anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags