AFACT ordered to pay iiNet court cost, again
- 25 June, 2010 13:55
- Comments 10
The Federal Court has reiterated its decision for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) to pay iiNet’s court bill after an unsuccessful appeals process.
iiNet won the copyright case brought on by the anti-piracy group in February and presiding judge, Justice Dennis Cowdroy, ordered AFACT to pay iiNet’s legal cost. The ISP is said to have spent upwards of $4 million on the court battle.
But in May, AFACT appeal to only pay 60 per cent of the cost, claiming the verdict handed down by the Federal Court was a “mixed result”. It also appealed the Court’s decision to award iiNet the victory.
Justice Cowdroy has ordered AFACT to “pay the cost of the respondent [iiNet] of and incidental to the proceedings including costs thrown away as a result of the abandonment by the applicants of their primary infringement claims against the respondent”.
An iiNet spokesperson said the ISP is happy with today’s ruling and it was a sound decision.
AFACT represented a number of Hollywood studios to sue iiNet for authorising movie piracy on the ISP’s network.
The appeal hearing is set for August.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- Virtualization and Consolidation Solutions
- Modernizing Security for the Small and Mid-Sized Business – Recommendations for 2013 (Sponsored by McAfee)
- Choice and Control: Considerations for Developing Enterprise Cloud Strategies
- Smart Cloud Provisioning: Low Cost and highly Scalable Entry Point into Cloud Computing
- Cloud and Co-Location Solutions
-
Barracuda Networks raises free capacity of Copy.com to 15GB
-
Barracuda Networks raises free capacity of Copy.com to 15GB
-
Barracuda Networks raises free capacity of Copy.com to 15GB
-
Barracuda Networks raises free capacity of Copy.com to 15GB
-
Barracuda Networks raises free capacity of Copy.com to 15GB
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
twig
1
haha whats the big deal AFACT
its just some spare change to them
re:twig
2
even smaller change for them to appeal
re:re:twig
3
It's not the costs, it's getting the court to relax, and using that relaxation recycled into potential ammunition.
funny
4
bahaha
Jeff
5
Double the costs charge each time they appeal.
Pay iiNet their dues and the rest can be marked as a "fine" for not doing the right thing. :)
Sven
6
Also, while it may be chicken feed for AFACT, it won't be chicken feed for iiNet if AFACT accidentally wins one of these cases. Damaging iiNet is probably higher on their priority list than recouping their own costs.
Peter
7
Its a better gamble for AFACT to try not to pay up as it will hurt iiNet more in stalling. Inevitably tho the will have to cough up and so they should. The irony that they are saying that they are not getting paid for transactions of media when they themselves refuse to pay up on their own is just going to show what they are really about. Throw another torrent on the tracker I say.
Loftwah
8
AFACT should have to pay for all of it and more. A company like iiNet has real priorities that $4 million could be used for.
chugs
9
i for one welcome the decision of the court as well as applauding AFACT's decision to appeal the original decision.
This issue is too big for just one case to decide. It deserves the full weight of justices and rightiousness to decide on what is fair and right, whether that goes iiNet's way or AFACTS is beside the point. Once this issue is heard and judgement is made it will sent a predecant either way and that will be used for many many years to come.
This is just as big as Mabo when you think about the far reaching conseqeunces the courts decision will have. Not just for Australia but for all other major western democracy that use each others court cases/judgements as framework to their own decisions.
Tim B
10
AFACT = hypocrites.
They allege that iiNet knowingly allowed their customers to break the law, and cause losses to AFACT, yet they refuse to pay what they owe to iiNet, which in itself is a breach of the law the court has now passed.