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.
4 Comments
Anonymous
1
A totally unrelated argument - this one's clutching at straws and deserves to be struck off as irrelevant.
Kathryn Edwards
Staff2
Agreed. C'mon iiNet, you gotta do better than that!
CodeSeeker
3
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
4
"...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.
Comments are now closed