iiNet Case Appeal BeganAdded: Thursday, August 5th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) argues in the court that the Australian ISP iiNet could have taken some preventing steps to treat infringers in the same way as those sending spam email and making threatening calls.
Recently AFACT’s appeal of its loss to iiNet has begun, where AFACT tried to argue that the Australian ISP could have taken some steps aimed at deterring unauthorized file-sharing. When doing this it could apply the same system as it used for punishing customers sending spam email and making threatening calls. In the court the Federation pointed out that iiNet could have done a number of steps, including notifications. Since it has a graduated response system to spam, there were some other steps in place.
AFACT argued that the ISP undoubtedly had the right to control the situation, as its relationships with the consumers were settled in a written contract specifying each party’s rights and responsibilities.
Previous decision made by the court said that the ISP couldn’t control the BitTorrent system and therefore can’t be held liable for the activities of its subscribers in the BitTorrent system. The judge pointed out that iiNet was protected by the Safe Harbour Provisions of the Copyright Act and the plaintiffs had to target the primary violator, i.e. individual users.
AFACT’s attorney appealed the decision, complaining that there’s no way of detecting individual infringers, and citing the University of NSW vs. Moorhouse 1975 case. At that time the University was founded guilty of copyright infringement after a student had been asked to copy the pages from Moorehouse’s books. The judge explained the ruling by the following: University failed to take reasonable preventive measures against infringement committed via using the photocopying machines, as there were no adequate warning placed on the machines telling users not to use them for infringing the copyright.
Thus AFACT applies the case to iiNet, highlighting that the ISP had no code of practice to treat repeat infringers, therefore failing to take reasonable steps to deter unauthorized file-sharers, though it had complete power to warn or flag the account.
The Federation keeps suing iiNet since 2008, repeatedly failing to win the case and launching sensational reports like “Movies downloading is more lucrative than selling heroin” or “99% of BitTorrent content is illegal.”
August 5th, 2010Posted by:
Thursday, August 5th, 2010
|posted by (2010-08-05 23:48:20)|
|AFACT can kiss my shiny Metal ASS !!|
|posted by (2010-08-06 10:50:24)|
|Living in Oz and using iinet I applaude them. AFACT COULD HAVE TAKEN ON OPTUS OR BOGPIND BUT DID NOT.....WHY. Because they believed taking on a smaller company first would be easier and they could use it as a president to get to the rest. BIG MISTAKE..................AFACT you lose hahahahahahahahahah FU!!!!!!!||
Most Popular Stories