Australian ISP Case ContinuesAdded: Wednesday, October 5th, 2011
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
The Australian leading Internet service provider iiNet is still trying to come clean out of a lawsuit launched by the notorious outfit AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft). According to the latest news, an Australian High Court allowed pro-copyright outfit to appeal a Federal Court ruling which was delivered in February 2011. Eric Klinker, the head of BitTorrent, has warned that Australia will set a precedent if iiNet fails to win the battle.
Within the lawsuit, Australian ISP obtained an important court decision against a number of movie studios and pro-copyright outfit. The court decided that iiNet was not responsible for the unauthorized downloading committed by its subscribers. Because of the appeal the court case will be heard later in 2011.
Despite the fact that the industry was complaining regarding BitTorrent usage, the company’s CEO admitted that the matter goes back to keeping up with changing market dynamics. He pointed out that the entire ecosystem of file-sharing was rather a market signal, and those who can’t embrace and use it to guide their copyrighted material efforts just miss out on a great opportunity.
Of course, this is exactly what the Motion Picture Association of America would like to see – both stronger copyright and more enforcement. This should be considered as a balance, and the industry is currently trying to balance these things against the public good. Although the copyright is meant to foster in the first place, the industry would always want to balance it against the interests of innovation. However, in a good world, the industry should not want to stifle the innovation with cumbersome Intellectual Property rights or copyrights.
BitTorrent’s head also claimed that iiNet against AFACT can be considered a classic case of “picking on the small guy”. He explained that he was sympathetic to the content copyright owners, because they had a great challenge. Although they don’t have an easy, cost-efficient way to enforce this challenge, the act of violation is where it needs to be policed. Once it is published, the same moment it is leaked. Here it’s not clear where the point of attack is. Any technology provider, both of an Internet service or of any software, should be able to preserve the ability to run their business and keep innovating.
October 5th,2011Posted by:
Wednesday, October 5th, 2011
|posted by (2011-10-06 01:24:22)|
|iinet is not our biggest supplier of the internet in Australia. If AFACT had a set they would have gone after Telstra, Optus or an ISP that is higher up the food chain than iinet. AFACT chose iinet because they have limited resources and more than likley no ties to any government party such as Telstra and Optus do. Also Telstra and Optus are publicly traded companies on our stock exchange and companies in which the Australian government has put their support behind when initially floated. This law suit is a scam and a set up, but a well planned one by the government. The government could not be seen to damage a company that they had previously supported, or be held responsible for a drop in share price that this law suit would create. Many Mum and Dad shareholders own shares in Telstra and Optus and would suffer financially due to this lawsuit. We have an election in the next two years and our current government is already in the crap because of their fiscal mismanagement and the introduction of a carbon tax - they do not need any more bad publicity. Like I said, this law suit is a well thought out scam!|
|government corruption at its best|
|posted by (2011-10-07 02:26:35)|
|Well put KazzGirl||
Most Popular Stories