AFACT: 94,942 iiNet customer copyright infringements in 59 weeks

Titles of unauthorised shared files include Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Harry Potter.

Legal representatives for the film studios and TV stations waging a civil court battle against Internet Service Provider, iiNet, have claimed a 59-week investigation into the ISP and its customers discovered "rampant copyright infringements".

In outlining its arguments at the beginning of a the much-anticipated civil case today in the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney (October 6) lawyers for AFACT - which represents the film studios - said "there were 94,942 instances of iiNet customers making available online unauthorised copies" of movies that included titles such as Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Harry Potter.

In a statement, barrister for the studios, Tony Bannon SC, said Wanted was the most infringed title with over 1000 instances of it on the iiNet network.

”These unauthorised copies available via the iiNet network represented free handouts of my clients copyright,” he said in the statement. “Films and video require a large amount of bandwidth to share via Bit Torrent, which is the programme of choice for internet users intent on infringing copyright. iiNet profits from selling bandwidth to its customers.

“In this case there is no issue that infringements have been occurring on the iiNet network weekly, daily and hourly since 23 June 2008. There is no issue that iiNet was made aware of the infringements on its network – they were aware because AFACT informed them every week for fifty nine weeks."

Bannon went on to say that iiNet has not done enough to discourage users from illegally sharing files or act on infringements of copyright.

iiNet has not commented on the proceedings or claims put forward by AFACT. The ISP is expected to make its arguments to the court from Wednesday, October 7.

The case will run for two more weeks, then rest for two weeks before coming back for a final two weeks. However, it is expected to be taken to the High Court regardless of who wins this round.

Join the Computerworld newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags Federal Court of AustraliaAFACTAFACT v iiNetiiNet

More about ACTetworkIinet




I'm sure they sat there and watched as every single computer downloading the file chugged along to completion.

They probably just joined a torrent and fished through the list of connected computers for iiNet addresses.

Zero guarantee that the user will actually download the file in its entirety or that some toddler isn't just mashing keys.



Maybe the different agencies responsible for roads should be sued for all the stolen and illegal goods carried on them.



lol SEEDS derp derp



Can you really see them going after each and every ISP? No they wont. So the point is they want to discriminate against IINet. Download speeds are abysimally slow in Australia anyway more download filtering will just contribute to that fact.



I love these places, you can see all the people that have the believe that they have a right to steal (copyright infringement) whatever they want from whoever they want. Some people call it copyright infringement, personally I think that this is just another word for theft. These thieves are parasites, they steal from the people that try and make a living from the craft that they choice to pursue. I am sure if a downloader was to ring a film studio and ask for permission to download the content, then they would be informed that it was illegal, or better pointed to a site that they can pay for the music to be downloaded. We then get the idiots that believe that the government is wrong to pursue criminals because a lot of people do it, therefore why waste your time chasing them? Would you like for the police not to stop people speeding in a school zone, because lots of people do it, therefore why worry about it?
This is not life and death, this is right and wrong, it is a different but an equally important aspect of life, the problem is, that people are not respecting the law, they are not accepting that downloading copyrighted material is legally wrong and therefore people are not taking responsibility for their actions.
IINET like all other ISPs are complicit in this, by providing the mechanism to allow people to do this. People will say that all we will do is change the protocol, however ISPs can fix this, by shaping or even better blocking that type of protocol on their network. Ultimately the thieves will revert back to direct contact with the source, which will ultimately allow for people to be tracked individually and prosecuted for theft (copyright infringement).
Until the world has a better way of distributing content, that rewards those people that are involved (writers, producers, actors, musicians, marketing, companies etc) in the creation of the content that is illegally download, illegally downloading is and will continue to be illegal and should be prosecuted.



Roads don't actively transport stolen goods, dodgy logistics companies & ISPs do. It's pretty simple; user's torrent App instructs ISP to fetch stolen property, ISP delivers it. Caught red-handed.

ISPs are the Robin Hoods of the digital age.
One day they'll be glamourised through ignorance but today they're just thieves & playing dumb doesn't cut it.




Do content companies still believe that illegal downloading is reducing sales. Common guys - the only empirical research done that I have ever seen (Harvard) shows the opposite and sales were increased. What is the value of a (yet it is illegal) download if in fact sales are rising as a result. Stop talking about the billions of $ of value lost as these would never be purchased anyway, and start looking for new business models in a digital age. Somehow I think the age of selling a DVD for $30 is over - look for other ways to profit, illegal downloading might even be part of the business model in future.



So what if they can see a file called 'Dark Knight' being downloaded, what is the content of the file (that they are not seeing). A file can be called anything and doesn't nedd to represent what is contained in the file. Maybe i will rename all my file to Dark Knight and be a pirate infinger also!



Downloading copy written files is theft. However, why just go after IINET, let us see the movie companies record companies etc go after the manufacturers of blank media (DVD, CD, BluRay) and the DVD burners.



I was under the impression that ISP's monitoring what theyre users are doing is invasion of privacy? I don't see how the ISP should be held responsible for what a user does. I don't see how it could even be possible to prevent it.



Why pick on iinet...

Why pick on iinet...

The people who download the content are breaking the law.. who gives a shit about moives, being download,

Its like a person shot somebody.. The person who sold the bullets,gun or who gave them the licence should they be charged.... Cant blame anyone for actions of another...

what about child porn, that is the issue.... that needs to be stop...

But saying that, stoping anything on the net is pretty much impossiable... The only way would to end internet..





Australia: Worst Game Rating in the world, Australia: Lowest Quality internet in the world,
Australia: Targeted for censorship

Theres a new Australia promoting itself to the world come join us and enjoy the violence in our streets at night its kinda like left4dead



The tripe Australian actors, writers, producers, etc turn out can't be given away - so how can it be theft dipshit?

Comments are now closed

Banks most trusted on mobile payments: Deloitte