iiTrial verdict: Telstra applauds legal clarity over user piracy

Renai LeMay
04 February 2010, 2:11 PM


Send to a friend Print

Australia's largest telco has welcomed the Federal Court verdict against a consortium of film and TV studios that tried to sue iiNet.


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.

“We welcome the legal clarity today’s judgement provides regarding the role of ISPs,” a Telstra spokesperson said in a statement.

” As one of the major content publishers in Australia we do not condone piracy and we encourage the lawful use of our services. Allegations of wrongdoing should be dealt with in accordance with due legal process, with which we will always co-operate fully.”

The telco has had a history of supporting iiNet during the trial process.

For example, in a YouTube video posted in November 2008, Telstra Media chief and former head of the telco’s BigPond ISP division, Justin Milne (pictured), said ISPs should not be held responsible for what their users chose to do.

iiNet also revealed in February 2009 that Telstra’s legal team was providing iiNet with expert advice on the case. Other ISPs have yet to weigh in on the judgement.

Delimiter


Post your comment



Comments

 RSS feed Email alert

Raindog (New user):

Real big of you JM, I didn't see Telstra publicly leaping to the support of iiNet before and during the case, despite any post case media claims. but I'm so glad Telstra and others can enjoy the results of this now thwarted attack on iiNet and Internet providers in general.

04 February 2010, 2:34 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

peterh-oz (New user):

It was repeatedly reported that iiNet was supported by Telstra (via use of its legal team).

04 February 2010, 5:13 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (New user):

Quoting peterh-oz:
It was repeatedly reported that iiNet was supported by Telstra (via use of its legal team

I'll stand corrected Peter, I'd seen nothing of this apart from in this article. Certainly most of the public comment from ISPs appeared as a concerned but very distant stop and watch. Words of support and encouragement are cheap when it comes to legal defense.

If Telstra offered actual support then I'll applaud that, regardless of it being in their own interest to do so.


04 February 2010, 5:20 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

apt.pupil (New user):

Quoting Raindog:
regardless of it being in their own interest to do so.

ANY big corporation has ulterior motives to any public move they make. They do it with a strategy. Sometimes figuring out the strategy is the hard part. i know for one that Telstra has been there because of all the news updates on the iinet case Telstra has been posting on their partners information portal






05 February 2010, 12:21 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (New user):

Quoting apt.pupil:
because of all the news updates on the iinet case Telstra has been posting on their partners information portal

Ah that's where i was going , but then I've always made a habit of reading real news in favour of propaganda. JM's contribution to the NWAT efforts resulted in his never being taken too seriously, however I was quite prepared to accept PeterT's correction.


05 February 2010, 12:37 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Peter Mac (New user):

Can anyone tell me why AFACT didn't persue Telstra and/or Optus with this case. If anyone was to be made an example of surely it should have been the big end of town?

05 February 2010, 10:11 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

apt.pupil (New user):

Quoting Peter Mac:
Can anyone tell me why AFACT didn't persue Telstra and/or Optus with this case

Telstra and/or Optus would have squashed AFACT hard and fast with their own dedicated legal teams. Smarter to pick on a smaller, nobody company for comparison, and then when(if- the matter is still in question)AFACT wins the case, there will be references to past legal battles on a similar/same topic that the AFACT legal team can then use as extra ammunition to win their court case. As i said a few posts ago- any major corporations' public activities are very calculated moves, and are done knowing how the predictable population will react. The one thing that puzzles me is Michael Atkinson's motives behind his recent censorship laws right before his area's election. Is he so cocky that he wants to add more fuel to the fire to rile up some competition? or is it that he wants to "go down in a blaze of glory", abusing his "representative power" as much as he can




05 February 2010, 10:21 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Not signed in
anonymous user Anonymous user