Will the AFACT v iiNet case help reduce the rate of online piracy?
- 08 February, 2010 07:53
- Comments 3
A Federal Court judge last week threw out a high-profile copyright infringement case against ISP, iiNet, brought by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT). The judge found the ISP had no liability for the instances of copyright infringement that occurred on its network.
While the decision was a significant blow to AFACT the organisation can still appeal all the way up to the High Court. So the case is expected to continue. Our question is, do you think the case will help reduce the rate of online piracy?
Have your say in this Computerworld Poll.
In last week's poll we asked how long it would be before the iPad is jailbroken. Here are the results:
An hour 10% A day 17% A week 24% A month 31% More than a month 13% Never - it's impenetrable...mwhahaha! 5%
- 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
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Microsoft Office
Comments
paul
I do not believe it was a blow to AFACT.
iinet's legal bill was about $4 million. How much more (or less) could AFART's legal bill have been. At least that gives some sort of idea. Considering the Consortium's joint financial resources, i strongly suspect this case was not about winning, but a leverage strategy relating to creating awareness, and opening a door for the political lobbying to change legislation to suit themselves...
What i have to say to you AFART, is that we shouldn't have to be paying (through our ISPs) to do your dirty police work. Let go of your horse an buggy. It died a long time ago.
Peter
Horse & Buggy, Paul? Do you think going to the movies is the 'horse & buggy' approach to viewing entertainment? Or do you just think that all entertainment should be purchasable over the internet? I dont think the studios will invest as much into their entertainment if 'non-emulatable' revenue leaders like cinema become redundant in favour of a possible revenue stream (internet) that's already being massively devalued by piracy! Piracy wont stop if you can suddenly buy everything legitimately and immediately - pirates will just wait until it's freely available a few days later, and the studio will get nothing. And they've then sacrificed the cinemas to achieve..... nothing really.
Thrawn
The fact that you can't emulate the cinema is exactly why it *won't* become redundant. Would people really pass up the chance to see Twilight and Avatar on the big screen, in favor of watching downloaded copies on their PCs? I think not.
The simple fact of the matter is, though, that making digital copies is not an activity worth paying for, because anyone can do it. We need to find a reasonable way to reward the *creation* of the art without trying to restrict the distribution of it. And there are ways to do that, but they aren't the way Hollywood has always done business. Hence the 'horse & buggy' comment - in the real world, cinemas are still fine, but when it comes to the internet, the industry's business model has been out of date from day one to the present.
Post new comment