AFACT v iiNet: Case moves to High Court
- 24 March, 2011 16:03
- Comments 4
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) will lodge an appeal with the High Court as part of its ongoing allegation that Perth-based internet service provider iiNet had allowed its users to infringe on the copyright of the film studios the body represents.
AFACT hopes to overturn a Federal Court appeal ruling last month that iiNet did not authorise the acts of infringement that occurred on its Internet service.
While the Full Federal Court found that iiNet had the power to prevent the infringements of its users from occurring and that there were reasonable steps it could have taken, including issuing warnings, Justices Arthur Robert Emmett and Victor Nicholas both agreed to dismiss the appeal, while Justice Jayne Jagot favoured AFACT’s case overall.
Executive director of AFACT, Neil Gane, said in a statement that it would appeal the decision of Justices Emmett and Nicholas.
“We say they did not apply the legal test for authorisation correctly," he said.
"In response to the Full Court’s conclusion that iiNet did not have sufficient knowledge of the infringements to authorise them, the film companies will argue that iiNet did have sufficient knowledge, that it admitted the acts of infringement and that its CEO admitted on the stand that the evidence was ‘compelling’ we are confident of our grounds for appeal and hopeful that special leave to the High Court will be granted."
In response, iiNet chief executive, Michael Malone, told Computerworld Australia the ISP would defend the ruling in the High Court.
"We do not see litigation as a suitable way forward because it will not help us solve the problem of piracy. Two courts have already agreed now that iiNet did not authorise or encourage customers to infringe copyright. It would be better for the movie industry to come to the table, sit down and come up with a solution," he said.
The appeal comes in the wake of a discussion paper released by iiNet calling for an independent body to assess and police copyright infringement claims.
Follow Hamish Barwick on Twitter: @HamishBarwick
Follow Computerworld Australia on Twitter: @ComputerworldAU
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- 8 reasons why Citrix NetScaler beats the competition
- Developing an Information Strategy - Strategize, Align, Govern, Execute, and Optimize
- Business Process Management, Service-Oriented Architecture, and Web 2.0: Business Transformation or Train Wreck?
- Oracle x86 Rack Servers Optimized for Rapid Deployments and Operational Efficiency
- Optimised Data Protection for VMware® Environments with Symantec NetBackup™ Appliances
-
Anonymous Takes Aim at Indian Government
-
Java creator: Fears over consequences of possible Oracle trial win may be overblown
-
Detroit makes pitch for ousted Yahoo employees
-
LightSquared question is in FCC's hands now
-
EU Parliament to vote on ACTA without waiting for a court decision
-
Creating Cool Web Sites
-
Learning to Program with Visual Basic 6.0 2E
-
Twitter Application Development for Dummies
-
Risk Communication
-
Computer Forensics for Dummies®
-
Drupal for Dummies
-
Webster's New World Hacker Dictionary
-
The Unofficial Guide to Photoshop Elements 4
-
Windows Vista Security for Dummies
Comments
hoppy
Leave iinet alone
Mick
Sore losers!!
They've lost twice, now, so this application should be regarded as vexatious litigation, and summarily dismissed.
And any further right to appeal should be denied.
This lot need to be slapped down to size NOW.
D Newman
It will not stop, even if they lose again they will come back with another fluffed up BS case, it will only stop once they have raised the profile of their alledged plight to such a degree, that it goes polictical and the government are played into doing some dumb assed knee jerk law.
They cant take Telstra to court as the government would fall into instant defence mode for Telstra, they have to, way to many vested intrests by all sides of government, as it would be precieved as litigation againest an Australian asset, even though it isnt.
And that would work againest the plans of AFACT to get protection laws passed.
Whole thing has been a sad joke from the get go with a outcome that was always going to be a long sticky legal mire, AFACT were thinking it would be a win/win situation, legal win or long painfull reminder to the government to do something, as appeal after appeal is drawn out.
One thing AFACT didnt count on was toxic attention it in fact has garnered.
Eddy
These AFACT cock munchers should just accept that society has changed. When most people don't consider something illegal, we should change the law accordingly.
Who benefits from prosecuting file sharers? Struggling artists, (like Madonna and U2)? No, it's weasle faced jerks like AFACTs lawyers and the copyright holders, not the authors of the works being copied.
How much of the cost of a CD goes to the artist compared to the overheads?
If there was no internet, would all file sharers run out to the shop and buy 1000 CDs? Of course not, so downloads do not equate to lost sales.
Talk about flogging a dead horse.
Post new comment