AFACT v iiNet: Statement in full from the losing party
- 04 February, 2010 10:55
- Comments 6
Film industry disappointed by Federal Court ruling on online copyright infringement
Thirty-four film companies representing the Australian and US film industries today expressed their disappointment that the Federal Court found that iiNet was not liable for the copyright infringements by its customers on its network.
The Federal Court of Australia today found that despite findings of copyright infringement by iiNet customers, iiNet did not authorise the acts of its customers.
The ruling came after film companies including Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises and the Seven Network, the Australian licensee of some of the infringed works, filed a legal action against iiNet in November 2008. They commenced action against iiNet following a five month investigation that uncovered instances of copyright infringements by users of iiNet’s services.
Speaking on behalf of the Australian and US film companies that launched the action, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director, Neil Gane, said he was disappointed by the Court’s decision.
“Today’s decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry,” he said.
“But we believe this decision was based on a technical finding centred on the court’s interpretation of the how infringements occur and the ISPs ability to control them.
“We are confident that the government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network.
“We will now take the time to review the decision before making further comment on next steps,” he said.
This is the full statement provided by AFACT.
Have your say on the outcome on our forums.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- iPhone 5 rumour rollup for the week ending February 10
- 3D mapping revives underwater city
- Academic challenges Turnbull over NBN satellite criticism
- What are you saying: Telstra’s customer service slowly improving, SA minister urging Facebook to overturn its photo ban
- In pictures: Capgemini opens new Canberra office
-
Maingear's six-core laptop has 1.8TB of SSD storage
-
After Megaupload shuts, BTJunkie follows
-
Windows Event Viewer phishing scam remains active
-
NeuroSky MindWave: Fun with Brainwaves
-
20 popular Ubuntu Linux apps you may want to try
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Microsoft Office
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
Comments
baggyone
Dear Mr Gane,
Australian law already has provisions to protect copyright. However this would require that the studios take individuals to court and seek damages on a one-on-one basis. Your lawsuit attempted to shift this burden to a third party, which was rightly regected.
The Australian government has nothing to do with it, nor is this "a policy outcome".
Or was that a veiled threat to the government that funds/media coverage could shift to a negaitve footing unless they act to change the laws to suit you...?
Prepare your appeal, but also prepare to pay further costs.
V for Vendetta
According, to Neil Gane it is a setback for 50,000 people in the industry. BUT it is a massive win (possibly even an EPIC win) for the 20 million citizens of Australia. It is all about perspective... and having some.
techydude
Dear AFACT Members,
Australian law rightly deflected your specious attempt to shift Your Problem to a third-party.
Rather than proceed along these knuckle-dragging tactics of lawsuits against an organisation (or individual consumers), why not recognise that you've squandered a decade of opportunity and goodwill, and GENUINELY EMBRACE digital distribution, full throttle, starting in 2010?
Your attempts to do so thus far have been nothing short of luke-warm, self-conflicted, and inconsistent. I frankly don't understand why your own shareholders don't toss the lot of you out with last decade's garbage.
Stop looking to law to protect you from not having DONE YOUR JOBS for the last 10 years.
Roy G Biv
Well done AFACT. You have done an unprecedented job of cruelling your short-term chances to win over the hearts and minds of Australian Internet Users and convert them into a viable market.
Would that you had spent the money wasted on senseless court action to come up instead with a winning strategy to distribute your wares on-line at reasonable prices. Instead, you yourselves sold out those very 50,000 Australians you so solicitously wail about. You chose to engage in a a high-risk, high stakes gamble and you lost. You should hire a new Risk Strategy Manager.
Had you spent the cash more wisely , imagine the job prospects and job security you could have provided those 50,000 Australians in the industry,. Yet you did spend, and seem destined to continue to spend unproductive cash in punitive temper tantrums against your own customers . Maybe you also need a Marketing Manager thrown in to boot.
I'm sure that with the equivalent amount you could have hired even Steve Jobs for a week. You would have had better bang for your buck, and a longer tail on your returns. Your 50,000 grateful Australians salute you!
Chris Z
Fundamental right of every citizen in a democracy should be (and usually is) the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof should rest on the accuser.
iiNet has a moral (and legal) obligation to take action only against copyright infringers, not alleged infringers.
AFACT wanted - no DEMANDED, that iiNet take action against ALLEGED infringers.
Allegations of illegal activity can only be proved in a properly constituted court of law. iiNet then MUST take appropriate action against CONVICTED (proved) infringers. This can include cancelling a customers connection, or issuing notices to first time offenders.
I am glad that the "principle" of innocent until proven guilty is alive and well in our legal system, and that not even a group of multi billion dollar giants can change it.
Just be careful, the current government can (and I think will) change this in AFACT's favour soon enough - pity - and shame on you Senator Conroy if it does.
Rob Morley
This was a win for the people and shows that money can't buy you the law everyday, maybe they should start looking in to ways to earn money from the downloads in the infrastructure that's available??? a so called alternative compensation systems for AFACTS 50000 member's how about a membership system where if you pay a monthly levi they won't sue you for downloads even if you got half the pirates to pay $5-$10 month you would surely be making money for JAM and can continue to try and sue all the other pirates this would make them a lot of money cost them next to nothing and then they start leeching of the bittorrent sites.
Post new comment