AFACT v iiNet: ISP draws on TV copyright battle
- 19 November, 2009 13:08
- Comments 4
Internet service provider (ISP) iiNet continued to draw on a 2002 copyright case between Channel 9 and Channel 10 over segments broadcast on The Panel as part of its case against the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT).
AFACT, who represents over 30 Hollywood film studios and TV stations, is suing iiNet and claimed a 59-week investigation into the ISP and its customers discovered "rampant copyright infringements".
While continuing to deliver closing submissions to the Federal Court of Australia, iiNet barrister Richard Cobden SC highlighted the 2002 case.
Cobden argued that the files of BitTorrent downloads are broken into parts that are not “substantial” enough to be deemed copyright, which echoes The Panel case of 2004.
Channel Nine sued Channel Ten over copyright infringement under the Copyright Act 1968, and alleged that the infringement took place through the broadcast of short segments of Channel Nine programs on variety television show The Panel.
The case of 2002 showed that copyright infringement took place when a “substantial part” of the subject matter was broadcast
At the time, Channel 10 applied the defence that it had not conducted copyright infringement because the segments taken from Channel 9 were not substantial in terms of quantity and quality.
Cobden said that out of the 11 clips which made up a “substantial part” of Channel 9’s programs, the judge ruled that only three were substantial.
Cobden also said that there are no records of the downloaded segments of the Pineapple Express film which amount to a “substantial part”.
The case continues.
Sign up for Computerworld's newsletters to stay up to date.
Got more on this story?Email Computerworld or follow @computerworldau on Twitter and let us know.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- IDC Case Study - EMC IT Increasing Efficiency, Reducing Costs, and Optimising IT with Data Deduplication
- Seven Ways Business Activity Monitoring (BAM) Makes Your Supply Chain More Efficient
- How to Choose an SMB - Unified Communications as a Service (UCAAS) Solution
- Gartner MarketScope for Application Life Cycle Management
- Reconciling Datacenter consolidation and security: It starts with an integrated approach
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
CeBIT 2012: Will NBN speed up freight delivery times?
-
NBN build gaining momentum daily: Quigley
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Microsoft Office
-
Office 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
Comments
Anonymous
A totally unrelated argument - this one's clutching at straws and deserves to be struck off as irrelevant.
Anonymous
Agreed. C'mon iiNet, you gotta do better than that!
CodeSeeker
How can you tell it is irrevelant? It kinds of Mirrors the DirectTV cases which involved DirctTV mangaging to get addresses of people who bought illegal descrambling equipment and then they demanded that pay a fine.However simply proving someone has bought one piece of equipment to illegal decode your Pay TV signals is insufficient. You need to prove they have all the required equipment. Reflecting back on our case, what AFACT must prove that they acquired all the packets. What if the internet user felt guilty and cancelled the download, maybe that screener you see at the beginning of movies got to them; the one saying "You woudnt steal a car?"
So unfortunately the records only show that they started acquiring the pieces not that it was completed.. and all the parts that are required to convert the data into a movie was acquired..
Anonymous
"...as part of its case against the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT)." C'mon guys, you need to present things correctly. It is not iinet's case against AFACT, it is AFACT's case against iinet. iinet is defending itself. It may seem a small point, but accuracy is important.
Post new comment