Updated: AFACT appeals: iiNet case judgement a “threat to Australia’s digital economy”
- 25 February, 2010 11:47
- Comments 11
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has lodged an appeal on the judgment made in its copyright court case against Perth-based ISP, iiNet.
On February 4, the case’s presiding judge, Justice Cowdroy, dismissed the case launched by AFACT, which accused iiNet of authorising movie piracy by not acting on known illegal downloading activities by the ISP’s users. Justice Cowdroy ordered AFACT to cover iiNet’s legal cost.
The copyright advocacy group filed a notice of motion in a bid to reduce the payout to iiNet but has now officially made a stance against the court decision.
According to an AFACT statement, the judgment “left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers and represents a serious threat to Australia’s digital economy”. It maintained iiNet neglected to act on copyright infringements on the ISP’s network despite having the contractual and technical ability to do so.
AFACT executive director, Neil Gane, said in the statement the judgment was contrary to existing copyright laws. He also claimed the ruling gave ISPs all the protection without any of the responsibilities.
“By allowing Internet companies like iiNet to turn a blind eye to copyright theft, the decision harms not just the studios that produce and distribute movies, but also Australia’s creative community and all those whose livelihoods depend on a vibrant entertainment industry,” he said.
iiNet responded to the appeal with disappointment and claimed AFACT's decision was "unproductive".
"The legal case has not stopped one illegal download and further legal appeals will not stop piracy," iiNet CEO, Michael Malone, said in a statement. "The studios themselves admitted during the court hearings that making content freely and cheaply available online was an effective way to combat piracy."
"People are crying out to access the studios materials, so much so some are prepared to steal it."
Malone argued there were more effective ways to fight piracy than with litigation. iiNet had previously cited the success of its online content distribution portal Freezone, which allows the its users to download legal content - including movies - as an example of how copyright holders and ISPs can work together.
The notice of appeal, which contains 15 grounds pertaining to the judgment, is expected to be heard later this year. The notice of motion relating to the potential payout to iiNet will be heard in May.
AFACT represents 34 movie studio applicants in this case.
Nominations for the 2012 ARN IT Industry Awards open on Tuesday, June 12.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- Premier Media Group Fast Study
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Continues to Be a Major Player
- Red Light In the Control Centre Saves Hours of Chaos
- Market Potential-Strategy Guide to the Active Archive Market
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Delivers Significant TCO Advantage over Disk
-
Facebook could buy Nokia to build 'FacePhone', expert claims
-
It's not all Doom at new media conference
-
Tech Watch: Who watches the datacentre?
-
Facebook scammers host Trojan horse extensions on the Chrome Web Store
-
Webroot: Growth in security
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
james
The only threat here is if ISPs start getting sued.
They could be fixing their own issues with on demand streaming but they are very unwilling to work with anyone on that point and would rather spend time and money on trying to sue companies that provide access to the internet.
AFACT stating the court decision as a threat to the digital economy is an absolute joke and all spin directly leveled at the government.
Get real idiots.
Ailie
I'd like to know on what grounds this appeal is being lodged for. The statements provided do nothing to dismiss the original verdict, it's just asking for others to be made responsible for their problems.
When will these idiots learn that all this nonsense is probably actually costing them sales from people like me who are fed up with their bandstanding and refusing to buy or see a movie until it's over.
Cameron Jensen
I wish these media companies would stop trying to blame ISPs for their woes. They brought these problems on themselves.
Movies, DVDs and music is more expensive and delayed in Australia than other parts of the world. If they expect Australians to pay for more content then they need to address these issues rather than pretending the problem belongs to someone else.
Drew
*cough* "iiNet case judgement a “threat to Australia’s digital economy”" that's the biggest load of rubbish I've heard in ages ...
It's groups like AFACT who are not engaging in using internet technologies in their global marketing usage that is threating the digital economy...
But then so is the minister of our interwebs...
observer
What absurdist spin from AFACT (Monty Python would be proud). What harms the digital economy is not IInet. It is 20th century monopolists refusing to embrace technology (ie AFACT) and force us back to the pre-information revolution.
Sven
Re: "copyright theft"
I think it's atrocious that the film industry's copyrights have been stolen. The thieves should be forced to give them back immediately!
johnny
I pledge I will never buy another movie if i can download it for free.
when you buy movies your putting money into the pockets of these bad guys.
I take their actions as a direct threat against the internet and therefore do not take it lightly.
Who cares about the artists when these big fascists want to sue people left right and center.
We won't even go into how they would prefer the whole judicial process be abandoned, evidenced by them wanting ISP's to cut people off for mere allegations of copyright infringement when really there is no PROOF of it.
Peter
Checkout a group called the IIPA if you want to see where this insane policy of suing everything and anything came from. You could say they copied it from them :)
Phil
Did the movie studios not read the judgement? I'm sure i read that Justice Cowdroy stated that even if iinet were found guilty, they would still be protected under the safe harbour act... How can they possibly win an appeal?
And i agree with the other posters, The movie studios need to embrace the internet. Provide video streaming of movies for reasonable rates (like $2) and provide life long licenses without DRM for movies to avoid the coming backlash over having to buy blu-ray versions of a movie when you already own the dvd, just to get it looking good on your HD TV (that is of course ignoring upscaling).
I'd pay $40 for a movie if i knew i could keep the copy forever, and that i would get free upgrades to newer, higher quality releases as technology progressed. And that i could redownload the movie from them without DRM if something happened to the copy i had on my end.
Anyway, i guess it won't happen for a long time at this rate. But maybe they will eventually catch up to the music and games industry...
David
What I don't understand is why AFACT haven't gone after channel 7 as they broadcast/transmit their signal via wireless means where anyone with an analogue cassette device (re VCR) can record infringing content.
Josh
"represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy"
I think what they meant to say was "represents a serious threat that Australia might develop a digital economy"
Post new comment