AFACT 'goes for the throat' in iiNet case (ARN)

[Drew Wilson]

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has dropped another legal claim against iiNet six days before its Federal Court trial in a bid to bolster its main case.

The legal brawl over copyright infringement was instigated by AFACT against iiNet in November. Representing a host of movie studios, AFACT accused the ISP of violating copyright laws by allowing subscribers to download films through BitTorrent and peer-to-peer (P2P).

In AFACT’s Outline of Submissions tendered to the Court earlier this month, the industry group omitted a former claim which alleged iiNet made copies of and stored pirated movies. That aspect of the case asserted the ISP cached the illegal content as it passed through its network when users were downloading movies. AFACT subsequently conceded to the Court that it has withdrawn that claim.

This marks the second time the industry representative has dropped a portion of its case. In May, AFACT disposed of a legal claim known as ‘conversion’, which suggested iiNet denied copyright holders their right over possession.

More... (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/320479/afact_goes_throat_iinet_case)

Yes, brilliant. Copyright infringement is all the ISPs fault. I have an idea, how about AFACT disbanding for offensive assaults on the future. :soapbox:

[don webb]

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has dropped another legal claim against iiNet six days before its Federal Court trial in a bid to bolster its main case.

This marks the second time the industry representative has dropped a portion of its case. In May, AFACT disposed of a legal claim known as ‘conversion’, which suggested iiNet denied copyright holders their right over possession.

Yes, brilliant. Copyright infringement is all the ISPs fault. I have an idea, how about AFACT disbanding for offensive assaults on the future. :soapbox:


Going after one poor individual is one thing, but when you accuse someone with the assets to argue the case you’ve opened a whole different can of worms.

It would seem if they were made responsible for any Legal Fee’s incurred by the defendant in this case “iiNet” there might not be as many of these types of legal brawls?

With a looser pays set up, they’d damn sure better have the T’s crossed and the I’s dotted before even making the accusations and they wouldn’t try to intimidate so many with the threats and filing of these lawsuits to begin with?

Can’t they counter sue for damages?

I only ask because I don’t follow these type cases much, but that is my general thought.

.

[w31n3r]

Going after one poor individual is one thing, but when you accuse someone with the assets to argue the case you’ve opened a whole different can of worms.

.

heh, you summed up my sentiments exactly. but one reason i guess ISP's won't counter sue is they won't want to upset the applecart. it could start discussion on laws in their region to force them to comply...

edit: holy shit! is that you don?

[don webb]

heh, you summed up my sentiments exactly. but one reason i guess ISP's won't counter sue is they won't want to upset the applecart. it could start discussion on laws in their region to force them to comply...

edit: holy shit! is that you don?


Yeah Yeah Yeah, told ya'll I was trying.........:pat:


But dont push it OK..........:newangel:

.