AFACT Continues Fighting iiNetAdded: Friday, August 6th, 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
Australian entertainment industry argues that graduated response system could be able to prevent BitTorrent users from unlawfully downloading copyrighted content, and that the service provider has the means to do that.
AFACT (the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) goes on with its case against iiNet, accusing it of being in charge for subscribers using BitTorrent networks to illegally download copyrighted content, facing the second day of its appeal in front of a Federal Court three-judge panel.
On the trial that is being appealed, Justice Dennis Cowdroy listed 4 guidelines to identify whether or not the internet service provider had authorized the illicit downloads. They included:
- providing the means of infringement
- knowledge of violation
- making copyright content available
- the power to prevent, or whether any reasonable measures were taken to prevent infringement.
As for the first guideline, the judge decided that the ISP had no control over the BitTorrent network and therefore couldn’t be held liable for the operation of the BitTorrent system. Further, as iiNet didn’t provide the means for violation, the rest of the guidelines became irrelevant.
Unsurprisingly, the lead attorney for the AFACT, David Catterns, appealed this ruling, saying that the provider’s Internet subscription was indeed a means to infringe, as if illegal file-sharers didn’t have a broadband connection, they would undoubtedly lack the ability to violate the copyright law.
Catterns argued that though the ISP had the power to prevent unauthorized file-sharing, it yet did nothing. He specified that the ISP had the complete power to warn, flag or prevent the account, as well as suspend, shape, and playpen the broadband connections of repeat violators like it did for consumers sending out spam or making threatening calls. The fact he points out is that a duly implemented graduated response system could constitute a sound step influencing the ability of the users to break the law.
In respond, Richard Cobden, iiNet attorney, defended Cowdroy’s decision and disputed the plaintiffs’ assumption that the ISP took no reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized file-sharing on its network. Cobden reminded the court panel that the ISP can’t provide the means for violation. Moreover, he believes that disconnecting infringers would not be a sound step.
August 6th, 2010Posted by:
Friday, August 6th, 2010
|As for the first guideline, the judge decided that the ISP had no control over the BitTorrent network and therefore couldn’t be held liable for the operation of the BitTorrent system. Further, as iiNet didn’t provide the means for violation, the rest of the guidelines became irrelevant.|
>>> Smart Judge - one with some brains for once.. That argument makes as much sense as a hole in your head. Like take away your car because the only reason your having a car is to speed and break laws.. > Again the "copyright" holders - I have yet to see an "artist" send violation letters to a user. Also again they are just trying to get the ISP to do their job at the ISP's expense... Yea you start screwing with your clients and they go else where - YOU LOOSE MONEY..
|posted by (2010-08-08 11:57:08)|
|This is crap if car manufacturers can make cars that break the speed limit it is not their fault its the driver!Imagine if they were held accountable for all the deaths on the roads on the grounds that they could have speed limited the cars and fitted them with all the safety gear available at the end of the day its the driver who is responible not the manufacturer and internet users should be treated the same.||
Most Popular Stories