iiNet reiterates that the “case has not stopped one illegal download and further legal appeals will not stop piracy,” and that it would be better served providing the inexpensive legal alternatives that file-sharers are demanding.
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), representing some 34 film companies in that country, today filed an expected appeal of its loss in a landmark copyright infringement case against Australian ISP iiNet in which it tried to hold iiNet responsible for customers using BitTorrent to download files illegally.
It says the “judgment that has left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers and represents a serious threat to Australia’s digital economy.”
It plans to once argue that iiNet had the power to stop copyright infringement on its network by suspending or terminating the accounts of suspected file-sharers, and that AFACT’s notifications of their occurrence, and iiNet’s subsequent failure to act makes it complicit in the crime.
“The court found large scale copyright infringements, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them,” says AFACT Executive Director Neil Gane. “In line with previous case law, this would have amounted to authorization of copyright infringement.”
Gane also claimed the ruling rendered the safe harbor regime ineffective.
“This decision allows iiNet to pay lip service to provisions that were designed to encourage ISPs to prevent copyright infringements in return for the safety the law provided, he added. “If this decision stands, the ISPs have all the protection without any of the responsibility. By allowing internet companies like iiNet to turn a blind eye to copyright theft, the decision harms not just the studios that produce and distribute movies, it but also Australia’s creative community and all those whose livelihoods depend on a vibrant entertainment industry.”
iiNet managing director Michael Malone has already emphasized the fact that both parties have wasted at least $10-$15 million and counting on the trial that could’ve been better used to create a legal online content service instead.
He’s now responded to the report of AFACT’s anticipated appeal by lamenting once again the misguided nature of their efforts and waste of resources on a problem with no technical solution.
“It is more than disappointing and frustrating that the studios have chosen this unproductive path,” he added. “This legal case has not stopped one illegal download and further legal appeals will not stop piracy. “The studios themselves admitted during the court hearings that making content freely and cheaply available online was an effective way to combat piracy.”
Exactly. P2P is only prevalent because copyright holders refuse to offer them viable alternatives. People in Australia don’t want to wait until TV studios decide when and where they can watch the latest episodes of The Office or Lost, and blaming ISPs only exacerbates the problem.
The appeal is likely to be heard later this year.
Stay tuned.
Related Stories
- AFACT Appeals iiNet Case to Aussie High Court
- Despite Court Loss, Aussie Copyright Group Demands ISP Pay
- AFACT vs iiNet Appeal Begins: “3-Strikes for Spam Not BitTorrent?”
- AFACT vs iiNet Appeal Day 2: “3-Strikes” is “Reasonable Step”
- AFACT vs iiNet Appeal Day 3: Judge Doubts Ruling Will Fix Problem
