Accuses iiNet of being actively involved in copyright infringement itself for refusing to prevent its customers from being able to engage in illegal file-sharing on its network.
ISPs in the "land down under" can add copyright infringement by file-sharing customers to the long list of headaches that includes govt plans for mandatory content filtering.
For today, seven leading movie studios and a TV network filed a legal action against iiNet, a major Australian ISP, accusing it of copyright infringement for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent iilegal file-sharing by customers on its network.
The action was filed by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the Seven Network.
Executive Director of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), Ms Adrianne Pecotic, said today’s action by AFACT’s members was necessary because the ISP ignored repeated notices over many months identifying thousands of of illegal file transfers via iiNet’s network carried out by its customers.
“iiNet refused to address this illegal behavior and did nothing to prevent the continuation of the infringements by the same customers,” said Ms Pecotic. “iiNet has an obligation under the law to take steps to prevent further known copyright infringement via its network.”
“Our members have asked the court to order the ISP to act to prevent the continuing unauthorized use of copies of our titles by its customers, consistent with iiNet’s own terms and conditions which prohibit illegal activity on its network,” she said.
Roadshow Entertainment Managing Director Chris Chard added: “Our titles including Happy Feet, No Reservation and I am Legend have been pirated by iiNet’s
customers via its network using BitTorrent technology.”
“Piracy impacts our film production business, but also our cinemas, DVD business, and our studios. Ultimately piracy results in lost jobs, and limits investment in new programs and films, as well as in new technologies which benefit consumers. This will only worsen as broadband speeds increase if we do not take action now,” Mr. Chard said.
The action was filed in the Federal Court of Australia today and the actual court proceedings are expected to take place on December 17th.
Australian Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, is already facing an uphill battle to implement his mandatory ISP-level content filtering plan, which critics say is ridiculously unworkable and heavy-handed censorship. The plan’s conservative supporters in the Senate are already calling for the filtering to be expanded to include gambling, pornography, and other sites considered inappropriate for children. ISPs such as iiNet are leading the fight against the plan.
It is iiNet that has already offered to test Conroy’s plan to have ISPs filter "inappropriate content" to prove to that country’s govt once and for all the ridiculousness of the whole plan in a fashion that makes it beyond reproach, giving it "hard numbers" to show just "how stupid it is."
With the copyright police and the moral minority in the Senate now attacking ISPs on two fronts, it forces ISPs to divide their efforts between two fights. Should Conroy get his internet filtering wish, you can bet AFACT will be first in line calling for the plan to be expanded to encompass illegal movie downloads. At this point ISPs will have no choice but to comply, and thus be burdened with the task of censoring what all Australians can do online.
And we think America is a conservative nation.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- Hollywood Lawsuit Against ISP for Allowing Piracy to be Heard Tomorrow
- Irish Record Industry Sues ISP for Illegal File-Sharing on its Network
- Australian ISP Defending BitTorrent-Using Subscribers in Court
- Music Industry Sues LimeWire
- Aussie ISPs: “Net Filtering Doesn’t Slow Connection Speeds”
Loading ...
You gotta be kidding me. I think ISPs in several countries are now thankful they don’t reside in Australia right now.
Reminds me of Ted Stevens “the internet is a series of tubes!” Lawmakers just don’t get it and one-sided lobbying doesn’t help either.
The internet can be viewed as a series of tubes that was no the flaw in Ted Stevens presentation. His gaff was in his failure was his incompetence in being able to explain the internet using the tubes analogy and clearly demonstrating his lack of understanding the topic. He clearly thought that his email transfers were being heavily hindered by torrent traffic which is incredibly misguided.
As for this ruling its another politician paid for by the entertainment industry. Every country has one and most have sadly been influential at one time or another. Hopefully as the older politicians get replaced with new blood the generations that fully understand the implications of intellectual property and the internet will help fix the ridiculous imbalances.
Never post without proof reading just ignore the multiple spelling and grammar related errors in my previous post.
The edit button is a wonderful thing.
Don’t know about your screen but mine lacks an edit button.
I am curious about the fact that only IInet has been singled out in this law suit why only this one ISP when ALL ISP’s are “allowing” access through thier services to the content that the suing parties are objecting to.. seems like a witch hunt to me
not only that IInet is one of Australia’s largest independant ISP’s which rival Telstra’s Bigpond and OptusNet.
I may be wrong here as well but I heard that IInet are actually from New Zealand.. but to single out 1 single ISP in this is wrong.
but I guess the money makers in this court case are more concerned about the loss of their projected earning of 5 ferrari’s instead of the millions they make inspite of ‘piracy’
(research has shown that DVD’s and Cinema continue to make groing profits inspite of file sharing…
iinet’s a west australian group that turned national. they started out small and bought up a lot of smaller ISP’s including the NZ ihug iiborg is doing well though with ~25 former ISP’s so far.
i think they believe somehow that by refusing a AFACT request for customer information and refusing to deliver infringement notices is “encouraging piracy”. when it’s just enabling state privacy legislation. and common sense. customer info like that should be private or you never know who is going to use your login information not just anti-piracy groups but spammers scammers thieves and litigious groups with ties to large corporations etc.
allowing *any* private corporation access if they just ask politely or write a nasty letter with a coversheet & letterhead from a lawyer is so stupid as to be criminal in itself.