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.

Tags Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT)iiNet

More about ACTChannel Seven NetworketworkIinetParamount PicturesSonyTwentieth Century FoxVillage RoadshowWarner Bros

ARN Directory | Distributors relevant to this article

4 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

 

Latest News

Oct 31
Over a quarter of Australians won’t bank on their mobile: Kaspersky
Oct 31
HDS A/NZ Partner Summit 2014 in Noosa (+15 photos)
Oct 31
The Google shakeup continues: Andy Rubin is out
Oct 31
Impact Systems boss wants to buy 10 resellers
More News
05 Nov
LIVE Webcast: Lessons Learned from the Biggest Security Breaches
05 Nov
vForum 2014
10 Nov
Ascom Myco Launch Event
11 Nov
DCIM Certified Solutions Professional
View all events