AFACT v iiNet: Cost hearing set for 4 May
- 25 February, 2010 11:37
- Comments 2
The Federal Court of Australia has retracted its order for the Australia Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) to pay iiNet's court costs pending a later hearing on 4 May.
The parties will share evidence regarding their cost claims and submit it to the court.
The Internet Industry Association is also seeking cost. It’s claims for money spent on supoenas will be heard by a closed court, with a caveat that parties may appear if required.
Federal Justice Cowdroy told a small court turnout he "queried the utility of the excercise" by AFACT to lower its payable court costs.
"Without knowing the grounds with which that AFACT is not liable for costs, we are effectively dealing with this case in a vaccum," Cowdroy said.
AFACT legal counsel said its court costs should be reduced as iiNet should pay indemnity costs for its abandoned primary case.
"Each party should identify costs on [an] issues [basis]... we sumbit that this should be made clear," the court heard.
AFACT has also announced it will appeal against the decision in the landmark copyright infringement case.
Justice Cowdroy dismissed the case brought by AFACT against Perth-based Internet service provider (ISP), iiNet, following a five-month investigation that uncovered instances of copyright infringements by users of iiNet’s services. Justice Cowdroy found the ISP did not authorise the acts of its customers despite instances of copyright infringement.
The appeal marks the start of a potentially long legal war, according Melbourne University copyright law expert, associate professor, David Brennan.
He said an appeal was likely and interested parties are "probably looking at 2011 or 2012 before a final judicial determination".
AFACT represents several large 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.
- 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
-
Windows Event Viewer phishing scam remains active
-
NeuroSky MindWave: Fun with Brainwaves
-
20 popular Ubuntu Linux apps you may want to try
-
Nokia N9: Why you shouldn't buy this device
-
Microsoft at a loss over Event Viewer scam
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Microsoft Office
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
Office 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
Comments
mianos
An appeal for costs should not be heard. This is one of the ridiculous ways in which a large firm tries to crush a small firm, not by a legal issue, but by continuing to try and get costs for trail after trial after appeal. This should be recognised by the appeal judge and disallowed on principle, but it won't because they all have their fingers in the pie.
Phil
AFACT know that by appealing the decision, it'll cost iiNet even more money and hours of preparation. The studios have the money to waste.
They could simply lower the cost of their crappy movies, more people could buy them instead. Also supplying legal download options along the lines of iTunes would reduce piracy.
Post new comment