Legal expert: AFACT appeal might do some good
- 26 February, 2010 16:25
- Comments 6
Outdated copyright policies should be refreshed and clarified, since the iiNet vs Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT ) debacle, according to a legal expert.
Representing 34 movie studios, AFACT sued iiNet copyright infringement based on the ISP’s alleged inaction over illegal downloads by its users. AFACT lost the case on February 4 but is officially contesting the decision.
The appeals process is likely to progress all the way up to the High Court. Despite conceding copyright issues will not be definitely resolved regardless of the case’s outcome, Dr Matthew Rimmer saw an appeal to the High Court as a good platform to discuss outdated rules relating to intermediary liabilities.
Dr Rimmer is a senior lecturer at the Australian National University’s College of Law and penned Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands off my iPod in 2007.
Safe-harbour provisions formed a decade ago were designed to protect ISPs from the actions of their users so long as providers take adequate measures in response to concerns raised by copyright holders.
Dr Rimmer claimed the current policy did not protect social networking sites and search engines, and failed to address the issue of intermediaries inundated by take-down notices from content owners which flag instances of infringement.
During the initial hearing, iiNet claimed it was flooded by an unreasonable volume of infringement notices by AFACT.
“These rules were framed in their present incarnation back in the 1990s in an age before search engines, Web 2.0 service popularity and before copyright owners could send out take-down notices in such an automated fashion,” he said. “I think the initial iiNet judgment was a good one but I think the larger question is about modernising the legal system to deal with the realities of how people actually use the Internet and how the marketplace is operating.”
While the courts have little power to change the law, Dr Rimmer said they would at least be able offer some clarity on the topic.
“It is a complex area of law,” he said. “Courts can play an important role in clarifying the messy area of law.”
Dr Rimmer was also concerned consumer interests were not adequately represented in the court case and called for advocacy groups to participate in the appeals process.
“At the moment, it’s a clash of the titans between iiNet and Hollywood but forgotten in that clash are the interest of individual users of the internet,” he said. “This has certain implications and consequences, with some discussion of whether Hollywood will sue peer-to-peer users in Australia.
“My concern is without the participation of suitable groups or advocates, those interests – which affect the majority of us -will not be given their due consideration.”
AFACT’s appeal is expected to be heard later this year.
Come socialise with us! Facebook | LinkedIn
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- Churchtown Primary School UK Primary School Chooses Aerohive's Reliable, Manageable, Scalable and Economical Controller-less Wireless LAN Architecture
- Aberdeen Group: Building Business Resilience Through Active Archive
- What is Wireless 2.0
- Market Potential-Strategy Guide to the Active Archive Market
- Red Light In the Control Centre Saves Hours of Chaos
-
REVIEW: Is the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 the new king of Android tablets?
-
MySpace: The next hot social network?
-
Datacom joins AFP, Microsoft and ninemsn to support ThinkUKnow
-
Lenovo awarded NSW DET netbook contract
-
Telstra-NBN Co wholesale broadband agreement “imminent”
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
riggie
i guarantee that the labour goverment will be out in the next election. Labour or Liberal they are puppets and are not running the show. Free trade agreement shows that they are dancing to the whims of the U.S goverement and adopting there policies those that of copyright. As time progresses we will have more of their U.S based policies inherent in our goverment and country.
The net filter is an assault on our civil liberties and free speech and this is a fight we must fight or else goverment and corporations will be dictating what we should and should not do. The net filter is draconian that is created and modeled on the concept that the civilian is a criminal and must not be allowed to speak and must be constantly be spied upon like a criminal. Use of intelligence against civilians that are not criminally inclined is a crime against freedom and a prison for those advocating freedom is criminal, We as a supposed free nation should fight the net filter if we dont in time to come privacy and free speech will be no more
Marty
The copyright owners would be better served if they put their money in developing a medium to distribute their material that cannot be compromised.
But then it's much easier to harass their customers. Here's another novel idea reduce the price so that it's not worth copying.
Ferdinand
Not another anti-filtering nerd. Go back to your whirlpool enclave where you can keep convincing yourself each other you are right. Leave other stories for intelligent comment.
Did you know that as soon as anyone sees you can't spell the name of one of the two major parties they just dismiss your "diatribe" anyway.
Now back on topic.... just pay the damn artists for their work, will you!?
JB
I wonder if the Electrical company that supplies power to iiNet servers will be drawn in? They also facilitated the copyright act by providing power!!!
HH
@Ferdinand - "keep convincing yourself each other you are right."? Is that a sentence?
Before you mouth off and dismiss others' "diatribe" you should educate yourself on correct grammar.
Just because someone erred in the name of a political party (and other things), does not mean their opinion should be dismissed.
There are many very well educated people who are not criminals who also subscribe to the view that Net filtering will not work and should not go ahead (as planned at least).
On the AFACT debacle, I'm glad that common sense has prevailed (so far) in the courts. I wish iiNet every success.
The "FACT" is that more Telstra users do the exact same thing as iiNet users (there are simply more of them). Yet AFACT chose to chase the 3rd largest ISP. Why? Because they decided Telstra and Optus' pockets were way too deep for them.
Unfortunately much law these days is determined by those with the finances to play the bluff all the way through.
If you go to iiNet's website, and read the entire case documentation (yes - I have), you will understand the conflicting testimony and completely irrational legal process AFACT is pursuing in order to make an example out of iiNet.
I totally agree with Dr Rimmer's comment that "...without the participation of suitable groups or advocates, those interests – which affect the majority of us -will not be given their due consideration.”
Entropy
Ferdinant your comment is illogical and irrelevant.
How is 'just pay the damn artists for their work' relevant to the court case? AFACT aren't in court with a pirate, they're in court with a service provider.
If iinet are liable for what their users are doing then the RTA, telstra, energex and cityrail should beware!
Post new comment