iiNet turns spotlight back on AFACT investigators

Claims investigator’s actions during their research did not accurately demonstrate the actions of iiNet users

Attempts by AFACT investigators to incriminate iiNet of copyright infringement do not accurately reflect consumers and are therefore flawed, the ISP’s barrister, Richard Cobden SC, claimed in his closing address.

Two Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) employees conducted an investigation into iiNet’s broadband network through BitTorrent and Peer-to-Peer (P2P) clients over a 59-week period. Anti-piracy solutions provider, DtecNet, was hired to research and record instances of iiNet users making unsolicited online copies of films. The shows available for downloading were also recorded.

During iiNet’s closing statement on day 20 of the trial, Cobden insinuated, from evidence gathered during cross-examinations of DtecNet and movie studio representatives, that iiNet was unfairly targeted by AFACT. He referred back to DtecNet CTO, Kristian Lokkegaard’s admission it used an IP filter to ensure AFACT investigators only downloaded from iiNet’s IP address range.

“[This is] foolish as the evidence from [one of the investigators] showed, it slowed the download times [to several days]… and that is not something ordinary BitTorrent users [would do],” Cobden said.

The barrister claimed both investigators committed primary acts of infringement and were the only parties proven to have made hard copies of downloaded material as well as distributing it. Prior to the Federal Court case, AFACT’s investigators sent DVDs of their files to iiNet in a bid to demonstrate movie piracy by the ISP’s users.

Cobden also claimed communication between investigators and iiNet users was on a one-on-one private basis and lacked the commercial character to make it a primary copyright infringement.

iiNet has always maintained the act of infringement rests on the individual who requests the transmission (the receiver) of copyright material, not the individual that makes it available. AFACT is representing a host of Hollywood film studios suing iiNet for ‘authorising’ copyright contravention by its users by turning a blind eye to their illegal downloads on BitTorrent. The case is due to continue on to next week. For a detailed timeline of the trial, click here.

Tags AFACTiiNet

More about ACTetworkIinet





(Why do)you idiots (write like this?) It's stupid



because it wasnt actually said, the brackets fill in the gaps to give context to the sentence otherwise it wouldnt make sense.




..The brackets are used when adding context to a quote.. If you get rid of the words between the brackets, the quote doesn't make sense.



I was under the impression that brackets were used when the person speaking didnt say it but its needed for the excerpt to make sense?



Huh ?

Obviously you were wagging school when english lit classes where on



Fixed it for you :)

english lit classes where on

English Lit classes WERE on.....

Giuseppe De Simone


Use of Square Brackets in Quotes

The use of square brackets usually designates that a word has been substituted for another word.

For example, the barrister may have said "the defendant" but ARN feels it is best to use "iiNet" as that makes more sense in the context of the quote.

Also, it is used to indicate a change in case of the first letter of the word if the grammatical construct requires it.



See what you've all done?

Damn (Not the thing that holds water) it all {well some of it}, I've forgotten <cannot remember either> what the discussion [argument, commentary, review] was all about now.

AFACT and IINET - no?

Or was it inglisch litera-chewer and grand-ma.




If the defendant was Avis Rental Cars...

If a criminal act was facilitated by using a hired car, would the hire company be on trial for helping the criminal?

Even when there is not even one person actually charged with the offense but only evidence (number plate from cameras) that the rental company was involved in the transportation that enabled the offense?

Why is it so easy for simple logic to fail in the face of money backed anger?

I have never heard of any ISP interrogating a potential customer about all and any intended usage or purposes when signing up. The ISP's do normally say in their standard terms and conditions for their service not to be used for any illegal purposes.

It seems arrogant to me for legal opinions to say ISP's are turning a blind eye to P2P transfers and their mostly illegal content as they squarely say don't do it. Technically it is almost impossible for ISP's to implement a control system that cannot be circumvented within days by end users. But then again barristers can be bit thick to such facts that would minimise their income...



If this case was being attempted in the USA, would it even progress beyond Pre Trial arguments?

Why is it that the Yanks don't try this style of intimidation in their own back yard?

Comments are now closed


Latest News

Nov 21
Tech Mahindra acquires Lightbridge Communications for US$240 million
Nov 21
Data#3 predicts "solid" growth in first half
Nov 21
Spanning partners with Fronde
Nov 21
Simon Hackett joins Redflow
More News
25 Nov
GovInnovate Summit
03 Dec
DC Infrastructure Solutions Professional
04 Dec
DC Infrastructure Delivery Professional
16 Dec
DC Infrastructure Solutions Professional
View all events