Feeds

Landmark ISP piracy case could kick thousands offline

Global copyright ripples ahead as Aussies set to fall off net

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

A landmark Australian court case could see thousands of Australians losing their internet connection, and has major implications worldwide for the law on copyright.

The landmark case started on 6 October in Sydney's Federal Court. A group of 34 film companies, represented by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) have taken iiNet, Australia’s third-largest ISP, to court over claims that they have allowed users to share copyright material illegally.

In their opening statement, AFACT lawyers claimed that they had found almost 98,000 iiNet customers had illegally shared material online within a 59-week period. The most pirated films during that period were Wanted and Hancock.

iiNet’s defence will rest on three key arguments. First, they intend to explain that it is impossible for ISPs to police the multitude of digital fragments that are carried across file-sharing networks.

Second, they will point out that this activity takes place despite their efforts to the contrary: they have not given any authorisation for users to breach copyright during file-sharing. Finally, they will argue that the monitoring of user downloads would be a breach of privacy.

In his opening remarks, iiNet’s barrister Richard Cobdem SC also suggested that downloaders could be confused because many film producers already have contractual relationships with sites that promote downloads. The BitTorrent website that hosts the software and promotes downloading displays the logos of Fox, Paramount and Warner Brothers, who are applicants in the AFACT claim.

He added that the film industry was requiring ISPs to carry out an impossible task: if all the copyright notices iiNet received from film studios over a five month period were printed, it would take 180 large folders and more than 12 trolleys to bring them into the court.

This week, presiding judge Justice Cowdroy ruled that a series of documents AFACT had sought to have excluded from the trial should be included and considered. This would enable the court to evaluate the current copyright notice procedure – and determine whether it was reasonable.

Since then, the court has heard evidence from DTecNet, the company engaged by AFACT to investigate allegations of copyright infringement, and from a number of US film industry executives interviewed by video link.

Justice Cowdroy has also expressed an interest in watching a live demo of BitTorrent.

Chief Executive of iiNet Michael Malone said he welcomed the opportunity to defend his company’s position and was confident of iiNet’s position. "iiNet has never supported or encouraged breaches of the law, including infringement of the Copyright Act.

"We do not, and never have supported, encouraged or authorised illegal sharing or downloading of files in breach of copyright laws. I am very confident that we will be vindicated and these allegations will be dismissed as unfounded, unproven and untrue."

Lawyers for the film industry claim that iiNet has done "nothing" to discourage copyright infringement on its network.

Instead, "when caught between a rock and a hard place, when push comes to shove they [iiNet] will not enforce" terms and conditions in its standard customer agreement that enables the ISP to cut off the services of users who have infringed copyright.

The consequences of this case cannot be understated. If AFACT win, then Australian ISPs could be forced to monitor and cut off customers who share pirated movies – and those who do engage in illegal downloads could see their connection terminated by their ISPs.

The case is significant, as it represents the film industry attempting to clamp down on file-sharing through the legal system, rather than by lobbying for new laws on the issue, as is presently the case in Europe. Again, a victory in Australia could see a number of carbon copy cases being mounted in other jurisdictions.

The court case is expected to continue into mid-November. ®

Security for virtualized datacentres

More from The Register

next story
Inequality increasing? BOLLOCKS! You heard me: 'Screw the 1%'
There's morality and then there's economics ...
Google hits back at 'Dear Rupert' over search dominance claims
Choc Factory sniffs: 'We're not pirate-lovers - also, you publish The Sun'
Spies, avert eyes! Tim Berners-Lee demands a UK digital bill of rights
Lobbies tetchy MPs 'to end indiscriminate online surveillance'
While you queued for an iPhone 6, Apple's Cook sold shares worth $35m
Right before the stock took a 3.8% dive amid bent and broken mobe drama
How the FLAC do I tell MP3s from lossless audio?
Can you hear the difference? Can anyone?
4chan outraged by Emma Watson nudie photo leak SCAM
In the immortal words of Shaggy, it wasn't me us ... amirite?
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Intelligent flash storage arrays
Tegile Intelligent Storage Arrays with IntelliFlash helps IT boost storage utilization and effciency while delivering unmatched storage savings and performance.
Beginner's guide to SSL certificates
De-mystify the technology involved and give you the information you need to make the best decision when considering your online security options.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops
Balancing user privacy and privileged access, in accordance with compliance frameworks and legislation. Evaluating any potential remote control choice.