AFACT blames technical intepretation for loss against iiNet

In a statement, AFACT representative blames the finding on the court's technical interpretation of how ISPs control content access on the network

The 34 film companies represented by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) have expressed disappointment in the Federal Court’s decision to rule in favour of iiNet.

The verdict by presiding judge, Justice Cowdroy today found iiNet had not authorised copyright infringements across its network. The judge also ordered AFACT to pay iiNet's legal cost.

Although conceding the applicants' copyright had been breached, the infringements were the result of the users directly and not the ISP's network, Justice Cowdroy said.

Speaking on behalf of the Australian and US film companies that launched the action, AFACT executive director, Neil Gane, expressed disappointment in the Court’s decision.

“Today’s decision is a set back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry,” he said in a statement. “But we believe this decision was based on a technical finding centred on the court’s interpretation of the how infringements occur and the ISPs’ ability to control them. “We are confident that the Government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network.”

Gane’s comments fuel widespread expectations that AFACT will appeal the Federal Court’s decision, sending the case into the High Court of Australia. “We will now take the time to review the decision before making further comment on next steps,” Gane said in the AFACT statement.

AFACT represents a range of film studios and content owners including Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, and the Seven Network.

More about: ACT, etwork, iiNet, Paramount Pictures, Seven Network, Sony, Twentieth Century Fox, Village Roadshow, Warner Bros
References show all

Comments

Anonymous

1

Awwwwww

I'm so sorry that AFACT's failing business model and their own hard-headed insistence on staying in 1985 is killing them. I'm sorry that their legal attacks on their customers have failed.

And I'm extra sorry that their attempts at destroying the Internet, and real creative innovation, with their bought-off copyright monopolies are failing.

Oh, wait, no, I'm not sorry at all. AFACT brought this on themselves. The sooner these monopolistic predators are out of business, the better we'll all be.

GregS

2

AFACT are barking up the wrong tree

By attacking iiNet on the basis of existing legislation, AFACT are wasting resources and time. It's a typical big business approach of using the law as a weapon at every opportunity. I think iiNet should sue for damages, since they have not merely incurred legal costs to defend themselves against this inappropriate assault, but also lost precious man-hours of management time, not to mention the public association of their legitimate business with copyright infingement - in fact a way of using the law as a kind of negative public relations tool.

The court action is analogous to a group of banks suing the RTA because bank robbers use the roads for their getaway cars, so good quality, high-speed roads facilitate escalating bank robberies.

There can be no doubt that personal copyright infringement is rife and growing rapidly, but this kind of spurious legal bothering makes the content producers look like nasty bullies.

Jahm Mitt

3

RFUKT sux

I am so pleased that RFUKT got exposed for their monopolistic practices of controlling what we watch, what we listen too and what we read; and where we can do it, what we can do it on, and when we can do it.

Rigging the distribution, rigging the equipment, rigging the prices, and rigging the copy right laws and rigging the copyright duration....

RFUCKT are like a insane nazi cultural blight on the face of humanity.

I hope they choke on their legal bill.

Jahm Mitt

4

These corporations are evil.

I am so pleased that RFUKT got exposed for their monopolistic practices of controlling what we watch, what we listen too and what we read; and where we can do it, what we can do it on, and when we can do it.

Rigging the distribution, rigging the equipment, rigging the prices, and rigging the copy right laws and rigging the copyright duration....

RFUCKT are like a insane nazi cultural blight on the face of humanity.

I hope they choke on their legal bill.

Comments are now closed.
Related Coverage
Related Whitepapers
Latest Stories
Community Comments
Tags: Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), iiNet
ARN Directory | Distributors relevant to this article
ACA Pacific , Alloys , Aquion , Avnet Technology Solutions , Dicker Data , Ingram Micro Australia , Multimedia Technology , Synnex Australia
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events.
ARN Distributor Directory
ARN Vendor Directory
Microsites

iAsset is a channel management ecosystem that automates all major aspects of the entire sales,marketing and service process, including data tracking, integrated learning, knowledge management and product lifecycle management.

 

Latest News

Apr 17
Splunk exec defects to tech disruptor Elasticsearch
Apr 17
JCurve acquisition to boost telco play following $A2.5m capital raising
Apr 17
Vodafone tackles FIFA World Cup with $5 roaming in Brazil
Apr 17
Kim Dotcom says he's set to get assets back
More News
24 Apr
The China Healthcare ICT Conference 2014
05 May
CeBIT Australia 2014
06 May
Oracle Day 2014 - Across 2 Cities
06 May
Oracle Day 2014 - Across 2 Cities
View all events