AFACT Held Customers Responsible for InfringementAdded: Tuesday, August 10th, 2010
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
At the ongoing legal battle AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) argues that it’s a subscriber who should be held responsible for infringement committed through his/her account, no matter who was the one committing the violation.
Another day of the hearing on the case AFACT vs. iiNet seems to contain more new assertions made by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft. Now the copyright holders group argues that iiNet’s subscribers should be held responsible for all violations of the law committed from their accounts.
The trial where the AFACT’s appeal has been heard began with the plaintiffs assuring the court that there were some steps short of closing down accounts that the Australian ISP could have taken in order to prevent unauthorized file-sharing. As an example, AFACT suggested that iiNet used the same system the ISP already had been using regarding those sending out spam email or making threatening calls.
As the time went, the copyright outfit pushed further and began arguing some sound steps should have been taken by iiNet, such as account closure and graduated response system. Unsurprisingly, the Aussie ISP disagreed with the AFACT on this issue.
Lately, Justice Arthur Emmett, one of the judges, expresses his concern on whether the current trial would really solve the problem the copyright holders faced, because it seemed to him that the trouble was a continuing one. So it didn’t matter much what the court could decide now if it didn’t have any impact on what was going to happen later.
The latest note made by iiNet was indicating that in terms of ISP’s obligation to develop and implement a graduated response system of some kind for rights owners, it would therefore have to deal with someone else’s business, which wasn’t its realm anyway.
Now AFACT is going further, arguing that it is a subscriber who should be blamed for any illegal use of his/her account, regardless of whether was committed by him/her or a different person. The copyright outfit argued that customers are to be held responsible for allowing others to use their broadband connection. The reason for making such an assertion is pointed to be the conditions outlined in the existing agreement between the subscriber and the ISP. Thus, by signing up for broadband connection provided by iiNet, the subscribers agreed not use it for copyright infringement, which means that if they violated this condition, the ISP was free to let AFACT prosecute them.
August 10th, 2010Posted by:
Tuesday, August 10th, 2010
|I don't know about the "Fosters" thinking in Oz; but in the USA trying what is mentioned and continued attempts to pass similar Laws is stupid. In the USA it is called Third party law suits; meaning you buy a car, run over some and they sue the car manufacturer because they sold it to you.|
Like the anti-gun nuts same mind set; sue the manufacturers because they manufacture guns and guns are dangerous. Well duh YES; but so is a ROCK or a chair you can bash some one with..
|I say we blame the RIAA and MPAA for making the products that we have to infringe upon. Without that we would have nothing to share with each other therefor NO need for these stupid copyright laws correct? Get a grip people. ISP's sell a service just like everyone else. Why should they be responsible for what people do with that service? This just show's you that they really don't know how to stop us. They can't get to us so why not go after the ISP's.||
Most Popular Stories