Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) intends to argue in Federal Court that it shouldn’t be forced to pay the costs of those portions of the trial which iiNet lost or impeded.
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), still stinging from a dazzling loss in an Australian Federal Court after suing ISP iiNet for failing to stop copyright infringement of its customers, has now decided to try and recover those costs of the trial on issues which iiNet lost or admitted delaying the court’s findings.
“AFACT put in application for costs to be re-heard and it asks for costs to be adjusted for the parts of the matter that iiNet lost,” said a spokeswoman.
The real kicker, much to the delight of all, is that not only did AFACT lose its case against the ISP, but is also on the hook for iiNet’s legal costs as well.
iiNet managing director Michael Malone says that AFACT shouldn’t be able to get out of paying its legal expenses and called the trial a “pointless exercise” in which the money wasted by both sides – $10-$15 million – on the trial could’ve been better used to create a legal online content service instead.
“The disappointing thing for us is we feel like we’ve wasted a year when we should have spent the time and money [on developing a content distribution model],” he said. “If we spent $6 million on this, how much have the studios spent? You would have to imagine given 34 studios were involved, their legal cost would have far exceeded ours.”
As for AFACT’s expected appeal, a hearing on which ic scheduled for February 23rd, Malone doesn’t see how it expects to prevail being that the presiding judge, Justice Cowdroy, was so “equivocal in his conclusions.”
“There wasn’t a lot of gray in there,” he added.
AFACT responded to the original verdict by citing the “intent” of the Australian govt rather than the facts at hand so it’s unlikely an appeal will much matter.
“We are confident that the Government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network,” it said shortly after the verdict.
The case is expected to go all the way the country’s High Court, meaning many more millions will be wasted that could have otherwise been used to provide the sort of legal alternatives to P2P that file-sharers want.
Stay tuned.
AFACT’s members involved in price fixing? Conspiring to rip off the consumers? Noooooooo
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9162979/Sony_LG_Samsung_Hitachi_Toshiba_accused_of_price_fixing
A home electronics retail store has filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony Corp., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Toshiba Corp., LG Electronics Inc., Hitachi Ltd. and several subsidiaries, accusing the electronics manufacturers of colluding to fix prices in the U.S. optical disc drive (ODD) market.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/33826
MDL Docket No. 1361 read:
“The Plaintiffs have alleged in two separate amended complaints that the Defendants conspired to illegally fix and control the pricing of Music Products sold to consumers through Defendant Distributors’ adoption and utilization of Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) programs in violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and unfair competition and/or consumer protection laws. The Plaintiffs have further alleged that as a result of the conspiracy residents of the Plaintiff States and members of the Plaintiff Settlement Class have been injured by paying more for Music Products than they would have paid in the absence of the illegal conduct. The Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by the Plaintiffs and any violation of law. The Court has not made any determination as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses of the parties to this Litigation.”
In the hot seat were:
* LABELS: Capitol Records, Inc d/b/a EMI Music Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc, and Priority Records LLC; Time Warner, Inc, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp, WEA, Inc, Warner Music Group, Inc, Warner Bros Records, Inc, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc, and Rhino Entertainment Company; Universal Music & Video Distribution Corporation, Universal Music Group, Inc, and UMG Recordings, Inc; Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc and BMG Music; and, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
* RETAILERS: MTS, Inc d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp, and Trans World Entertainment Corp.
What a bright idea, taking a political issue to court rather than a legal issue. Unless a LOT of bribery is involved, they’re acting like idiots.