AFACT v iiNet: ISP hits back at studios
- 19 March, 2010 12:07
- Comments 4
Internet service provider, iiNet, has hit back at claims by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) that its Notice of Contention is in essence an appeal against the Federal Court’s ruling, which found in favour of the ISP ordered the studios to pay the costs of the case.
But iiNet chief regulatory officer, Steve Dalby, said the ISP was simply responding to the studios' court actions. AFACT first brought the case against iiNet in December 2006 and has also lodged an appeal against the findings and a cost hearing is set down for May. AFACT's legal counsel has argued its court costs should be reduced.
“The original claim was lodged by the studios and this appeal has been instigated by the studios, not iiNet,” Dalby said. “If the appeal had not been lodged, we would not have the opportunity to respond.
“They are entitled to appeal and they have. We are entitled to respond and we have.”
He said AFACT’s response to the Notice of Contention was similar to the tactics the studios employed throughout the case.
“They seem to think that iiNet should sit quietly and accept whatever fate AFACT demand,” he said. “They were outraged when we defended their flawed claims and now they are outraged because we are responding actively to their appeal. That outrage may indicate a lack of confidence in their arguments and a futile wish that we would just roll over and surrender.”
Dalby said the ISP was pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the appeal and address aspects of the case.
“We think we can come out of this process in a stronger position even than that provided by the primary judgment,” he said.
Dalby also reiterated the earlier comments of iiNet’s chief executive officer, Michael Malone, that the legal case had failed to reduced piracy.
“They have not reduced copyright infringement one iota. We are open to discuss new distribution models with content owners at any time, we believe that approach has much more chance of reducing infringements,” Dalby said.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- Justifying Business Intelligence Applications
- Disciplined Agile Delivery: An Introduction
- SOA and Business Processes: Making the Connection
- The Pathways ICT Leadership Development Program Brochure and Curriculum 2012
- Pathways Advanced ICT Leadership Development Program Brochure and Course Outline 2012
-
Analysis: Microsoft - Too old and too big to survive?
-
A comparison of Telstra's 4G phones
-
Drupal gains ground down under
-
NBN build gaining momentum daily: Quigley
-
Chambers: Networking's changing competitive landscape
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
-
Microsoft Office
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Office 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
Comments
Paul
Clearly, the old media is banging head long into new media ideas. There are a few TV episodes that I download and watch for the simple reason that they are not available in Australia, and if they were, I don't want the ads. I'd happily pay for the episode but not that much. If the price was $1.00 an episode, then I'd happily pay. If there was a subscription model, then I'd also pay $40-$50 a month to be able to download what I want to see, when I want to see it. I believe the US as some services like this, but in Oz, we're still waiting...
Peter
And thats EXACTLY why Piracy works - piracy GIVES the customer EXACTLY what they want. It really has little to do with getting it for free. The people just dont want big money grabbing corporations to dictate to them when and where and how - the market is out there - people WILL PAY if the studios get the model right and for the right price. But they are more concerned with loosing their power which is cutting their nose off to spite their face. STUPID!
Daniel
We all know piracy is going on.
None of us really do anything to stop it.
So using AFACTs arguments, we are *all* guilty.
It's a losing argument.
Oh well, companies that fail to modernise, will instead litigate.
Hyding
Piracy does indeed give the consumer (not customer, customers buy something) exactly what they want. However the real question is this.
If a product costs $80M to develop and 1M customers want it and pay $90 (need some profit to survive that is only fair) for it is that right and reasonable? The answer is of course yes. If however 4M people consume the product (1M buyers and 3M others) the price would drop to say $40 per copy, which is less money per copy for people paying for the product, more incentive (profit) for the companies to develop the products that consumers want to see.
The problem is that consumers that don't pay for the products, ensure that the prices have to stay high to ensure company profitablity, why is this a company driven problem, why is the situation n. I would argue that it is far easier to shout at the company for this, however it is probably as fair to suggest why not look inwardly at the consumers and say pay for the goods that you demand and consume and the price of the overall products will go down.
It is much easier to target the profit making entity rather than the demanding yet unpaying consumer, the great faceless giant versus your friend down the road.
Post new comment