Computerworld

iiNet: AFACT’s 94,942 figure artificially inflated

AFACT finishes its opening arguments and iiNet begin on day two of the civil court battle
Tags | AFACT v iiNet | iinet | copyright | AFACT

Legal representatives for Internet Service Provider, iiNet, have claimed copyright infringement figures presented to the Federal Court of Australia by Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) in the civil case between the parties were “artificially inflated”.

Yesterday, AFACT, which represents several large film studios and TV stations, began to outline its arguments, claiming 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 over a period of 59 weeks.

On the second day, on October 7, AFACT finished its arguments and presented its key documents around lunchtime. One of the documents, sighted by Computerworld, showed email communications between key iiNet employees, including CEO Michael Malone, discussing how to deal with infringement notices.

AFACT argued the documents show iiNet should have done more to stop its customers sharing copyrighted files. Other confidential documents were also tabled in court.

Barrister for the studios, Tony Bannon SC, also alleged iiNet’s training course documents showed the ISP knew its customers were using P2P networks, thus indicating the company could monitor what its customers were doing and do more to stop copyright infringement.

In outlining iiNet’s opening arguments, however, senior counsellor, Richard Cobden, described AFACT case as a “novel composition and adventurous” and “a dramatic extension of the application of the law”.

He also alleged AFACT’s 94,942 claim was “artificially inflated by a contrived process”. Essentially, iiNet claims AFACT counted an alleged copyright infringing file sitting on one computer as part of its total figure each time it searched for the file.

If AFACT returned twice a day to check for infringements, for example, it would count the same file in question on a computer as equating to two infringements.

iiNet will finish its arguments tomorrow before AFACT calls its first witnesses.

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

More about: ACT, iiNet
References show all

Comments

1

Anonymous

Fri 09/10/2009 - 12:17

The parties constituting AFACT have a deep obligation to ensure that piracy is not possible. They should look to their own security measures before invoking the law. If you do not close your envelopes then your mail carrier can not be held responsible for missing contents.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Users posting comments agree to the Computerworld comments policy.
Login or register to link comments to your user profile, or you may also post a comment without being logged in.
Related Coverage
Recent Discussions
Whitepapers
All whitepapers
tracking pixel
 
Computerworld Community Comments
Zones
SAS Resource Centre

This Resource Centre hosts a wealth of thought leadership articles, whitepapers, and success videos, to help you make the most out of your corporate information in order to swiftly make sound business decisions to survive and thrive in the current economic climate.

Oracle Resource Centre

News, Features and the latest whitepapers on SOA, Application Grid, Enterprise Management and Database

Sponsored Links
 
Back to top Sitemap
Copyright 2009 IDG Communications. ABN 14 001 592 650. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of IDG Communications is prohibited.