AFACT drops claim against iiNet
- 12 May, 2009 12:57
- Comments 6
In an ongoing court action, copyright holders have dropped a portion of their legal case involving accusations that internet service provider (ISP), iiNet, has breached copyright.
In November last year, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), on behalf of different movie studios, lodged a case against iiNet, stating the company infringed on copyright laws by allowing its subscribers to download pirated films through Bit Torrent and peer-to-peer (P2P) networks.
AFACT has disposed of the legal claim known as ‘conversion’, which suggests iiNet has denied copyright holders their right over possessions.
In a statement from AFACT, the primary claim against iiNet’s failure to intervene in known copyright infringement on its network still stands.
The Federal Court has ordered plaintiffs to reimburse iiNet’s legal costs pertaining to the withdrawn claim.
The case is expected to continue in October.
Come socialise with us! Facebook | LinkedIn
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Delivers Significant TCO Advantage over Disk
- Red Light In the Control Centre Saves Hours of Chaos
- Market Potential-Strategy Guide to the Active Archive Market
- Spectra Logic and Australian National University Success Story - March 2012
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Continues to Be a Major Player
-
Webroot: Growth in security
-
Sice quits Acronis, joins Staples
-
Sice quits Acronis, joins Staples
-
Conroy to receive secret filter forum report
-
Sice quits Acronis, joins Staples
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
Steve
It was inevitable
Slowly...surely, their case against iiNet will crumble. Of course they would prefer it happens very quietly, but it won't.
Anonymous
Long live iiNet! AFACT should drop the case and instead the studios involved should work with distributors on new ways of making legal access to media easier and more affordable. Then perhaps less people would exploit other methods.
Anonymous
Entire Case
Isn't this entire case one of blaming the messenger for carrying the message?
If you follow this "logic", then can't the following also be applied:
<ol>
<li>Sue the vehicle manufacturers for the carnage on our roads</li>
<li>Sue government for providing those roads</li>
<li>Sue the emergency service staff for saving the life of anyone who goes on to commit a crime</li>
<li>Sue the legal fraternity if their client if found guilty of a crime</li>
<li>Sue the telecommunications companies for any crimes planned using their equipment</li>
<li>Sue the energy companies for the power used to plan or commit a crime</li>
<li>Sue the newsagent for reporting the bad news</li>
<li>Sue the paper delivery person for delivering the bad news</li>
<li>Sue the record companies for any crimes committed while listening to their records</li>
<li>Sue the TV stations for reporting the bad news</li>
<dt>Sue the movie industry for any crimes that closely resemble any portrayed in film</li>
<li>Sue the plumbing manufacturers for any bathroom drownings</li>
<li>Sue the water companies for supplying the water in the first place</li>
</ol>
The list can go on and on and on... I wish just that commonsense would prevail. What's next and where will it all end?
Will I be able to sue my plumber because I get a stomach bug and have to throw up in the toilet that he installed?!? Or my doctor for advising me of the fact that I contracted the bug?!? Or the pathology company for running the tests to identify the particular type and strain of bug?!?
Anonymous
AusPost
If iiNet get convicted of copyright theft, then the same could be said about Australia Post if I post a copied DVD to a friend down the street. The breech occurs when and where the copy is made, not in the transportation of the content from one place to another.
Anonymous
i guess telstra and optus get a pass on this ?
So the government with 51% ownership of telstra should also be in court. Stupid is the only word for this case.
Anonymous
Wealthy Dinosaus become Desparate
Entertainment coprporations have made lots of money in OLD, controlled media distribution systems.
Now that the reality of an uncontrolled distribution system has bitten sharpely into profits of course they are scared - witliss, as presented by this arrogant/silly legal challenge.
It would seem to me that 3 purposes are being served here.
1. Top executives need to display to shareholders they have the muscle to re aquire control of their product and hence profits.
2. A bunch of barristers are very pleased their legal opinions will be heard as it bolsters their income and reputation. The same legal opinions that came up with the silly notion and sold it to the desparate entertainment industry executives. Those legal opinions will be rewarded regardless of who wins or loses.
3. Opportunism. What if after putting a few million dollars into some arrogant intellectual opinion presenters they won? Party time! Fear of the Entertainment Gods will re establish (to a little extent) their control of this Internet monster they so fear.
It is so sad to see that such a creative part of society is operated by a bunch of scared seniors. If they displayed the same enthusiasm engaging with their customers rather than trying to smash people or other businesses, maybe they would see a turnaround in profits.
Fortunately, my opinion did not even cost 2 cents..
Post new comment