AFACT: We shouldn't have to pay all iiNet legal costs
- 04 May, 2010 13:17
- Comments 12
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) is seeking to pay only 60 per cent of iiNet’s court costs, claiming the verdict handed down by the Federal Court in February was a “mixed result”.
The anti-piracy group launched and lost a Federal Court case against the Perth-based ISP for alleged copyright infringement. AFACT accused iiNet of authorising film piracy by its subscribers by refusing to take action against them. In its verdict in February, the court ordered AFACT to foot iiNet’s legal bill. AFACT then launched an appeal.
AFACT bases its justification for not paying the court bill in full on the verdict by presiding judge, Justice Cowdroy, which was broken down into several sections. While he dismissed the case brought forth by AFACT, Justice Cowdroy did not acknowledge certain parts of iiNet’s defence. This included the validity of Safe Harbour and the ISP’s assertion it was protected as a carriage service provider under Section 112E of the Copyright Act.
Justice Cowdroy declared iiNet was not qualified for 112E protection.
In its presentation today, AFACT highlighted several preceding court cases where the losing party did not have to pay the full court costs of the victor with compensation determined. In those cases, the court allocated compensation based on issues addressed during proceedings only. The anti-piracy group appealed for the same kind of treatment.
“In the case of a mixed result, when neither party is wholly successful, cost cannot be done by mathematical precision,” AFACT’s legal representation, J. M. Hennessy, said. Paying 60 per cent was fair when considering the outcomes of previous cases of similar nature, he said.
“The victory is overstated because you honour’s ultimate finding disposing of the issues, didn’t necessarily adopt either side’s argument,” Hennessey said.
iiNet maintains it is entitled to the full indemnity and claimed it was impractical to weigh up every single detail of a case to determine reimbursement for legal bills.
“One doesn’t engage in an unscrambling of an egg unless there are very good reasons for doing so,” iiNet barrister, John Cobden, said.
He claimed previous court cases where special treatment was given, as highlighted by AFACT, were significantly different to the case at hand.
The appeal is still in progress.
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
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Continues to Be a Major Player
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Delivers Significant TCO Advantage over Disk
- Premier Media Group Fast Study
- Spectra Logic and Australian National University Success Story - March 2012
- Aberdeen Group: Building Business Resilience Through Active Archive
-
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
PC
what a joke these tools brought on a case that was on very shaky ground at best and now do not want to pay for their folly.
How would they feel if we all went out and said that their movies are too expensive at the local shop and downloaded a pirate version, aaahhh i hear you say that is the point, they do not want us to do it but it is ok for them!
payup
what nonsense. What a world we live in if AFACT doesn't pay 100% of the costs. In fact, I would ask iiNet to sue them for this, ask MORE from AFACT. Bloody idiots over there. Next thing is they'll sue the small time player, and then ask 40% of legal fees ( thousands ) and expect to get paid too, this is bad, very bad.
pay up AFACT. In fact, pay more than just the legal fees.
dave
Perhaps I should commit to only paying for 60% of all future CD/DVD purchases? Sounds fair to me.
petey
I wish I could do whatever I wanted and not have to pay the consequences.
thomas perkins
Until AFACT pays in full, for their toe dipping into the legal waters,
I am going to pirate my head off, and give away as many copies
of movies tv shows until they do pay in full.
and make sure I will give away as many new release films
and tv shows until they do.
It may only be a pimple on their behind but I dont care. They can not have their cake, and expect to masticate it as well.
If they can be staunch about not adapting to new technologies in a reasonable way, then so can I .. suffer in ya jocks AFACT.
NA
I think we all knew the outcome of the case before it began.. You don't have to be a psychic to know that, you just need some 'common sense'
Iinet don't control the Bittorrent system.. so of course AFACT couldn't win.
Its like saying "I'm gonna stop all spammers when i detect them". Someone tell me, does AFACT really have a real brain or an artificial one?
iinet's lucky.. getting 60% i reckon.. If it wasn't for the court, they probably wouldn't get anything at all.
Its better than nothing, but more is preferable :)
As I said, piracy will never die.... but they love to try.
gnome
Even a judgement for 100% costs must be well short of what this stupid case would have cost iiNet. If principles of justice and fairness were able to be applied, there would be a large damages component added to AFARTs costs as a deterrent to future adventures.
Blyth
They got their ass handed to them in court and now the expenses of a loss taste bad.
Tough, its procedure that the looser plays for the others expenses.
tom
NO AFACT you should have to incur all of the costs and you will too.
Peter
AFACT is like some spoiled bully who has very rich parents and feels like he can do what he wants when he wants and nothing bad could ever happen to him. And if he doesnt get his way he kicks and screams like a baby. He has no friends and the combined intelligence of a sack of dirt. Despite wearing the most expensive clothes he smells only to grow up to be just bigger and smellier with the same immature outlook on life with the sole purpose of gouging every dollar he can from as many people as possible.
Tom
This is a punitive action by AFACT. IINET does not have the financial backing of AFACT and if AFACT can convince the judge to allow some costs against IINET then IINET will be severely damaged unlike AFACT. This will both set a legal precedence and a threat to any one else that may not toe the line.
Do not assume that AFACTS interests are for anything other than their financial gain.
Their backers will just charge an extra dollar on many millions of DVD's and CD's to pay for this and more for the next attempt.
At best you can liken them to Psychopaths, "it is not personal" as they stick it into you.
Best thing to do is to let the judge know that the community does not wish to set this precedent.
B. L. Zebub
Its like saying .... I want to eat my cake and have it too.....
Sorry Neil & all other AFACT stooges - you either nut up or shut up -
If they had won the flimsy, poorly conceived case, would they allow iiNet to say "oh can we only pay 60%?" of course not....
iiNet 1 - AFACT 0
Post new comment