Telco/ISP

iiNet vs the film industry: Judgement day preview

By Brett Winterford

Jan 29, 2010 7:28 AM

Three months earlier than expected.

The trial between iiNet and the film industry reaches another milestone on Thursday February 4 with Justice Cowdroy to hand down his decision on the case.

Click here for live coverage beginning 8:00am on Thursday February 4.

The judgement comes much earlier than even the best estimates from lawyers and industry observers.

A decision on the case, for which hearings concluded in late November last year, had not been expected for approximately six months.

You can follow the case in-full here. For a background on the case, click here.

iiNet vs the film industry: Judgement day preview

20 comments in this discussion

"I think AFACT will now look into grounds for an appeal but more importantly will look into Lobbying the government for legislation. No doubt piggybacking on Net filtering legislation will look ..."

By deonast

AFACT v iiNet: The judgement in full

Analysis: Five ways AFACT lost the iiNet case

iiNet looks to close gaps in AFACT judgement

AFACT: iiNet appeals Court decision too

Breaking Stories

Video: NSW Police step up anti-piracy raids

Telstra 'price gap' is no bluff: Ovum

Researcher sued for naughty Acrobat install

Crunch: Minister is a n00b; Violence at Telstra

Microsoft plugs cheaper VDI alternative

Comments: 20

Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.

Digger11 Jan 29, 2010 9:15 AM	Alright you Interent lawyers out there (and there are plenty of you!). Does an early judgement usually indicate a guilty verdict? or the opposite ? Not after your opinion on if they are guilty - just what an early judgement means.
ITrant Jan 29, 2010 10:34 AM	There is nothing legal about this case. The LAW is clear. ISPs are not liable for the conduct of their customers. The police didn't investigate the allegations. AFACT didn't make their "criminal" allegations to the police, as required by LAW, because AFACT has no case. LEGALLY, this case should never have made it to trial. Something else is going on here. IT News needs to investigate the judge's connections with AFACT, because the LEGAL PRECEDENT, at least in the only other country these shenanigans have been attempted, is that the judge was employed by the copyright industry and refused to recuse himself from the case.
Thysce Jan 29, 2010 12:26 PM	@Digger11 "Does an early judgement usually indicate a guilty verdict? or the opposite ?" - It could mean either, but no way to tell for sure until the verdict is made. "Not after your opinion on if they are guilty - just what an early judgement means." - An early judgment means guilty? How prejudice. What happens if the judgment is made and they're made to be innocent? Show me where in the law books that an early judgment is defined as a guilty verdict. Please, srsly, show me.
Johnny Jan 29, 2010 2:03 PM	if the verdict is guilty then all aussie ISP's will be forced by law to break the law? wow how screwed up. not guilty thanks... you can't be ordered by law to break the law.
Sams Jan 29, 2010 2:40 PM	Always keep in mind that legality is not the same a morality.
Pb1 Jan 29, 2010 2:56 PM	People download movies for free but don't sell it and use the file for personal "legal" home use but on the other hand even though the downloader isn't making any money the movie industry is losing money at the same time. So it's still illegal no matter how you look at it.
Pb1 Jan 29, 2010 2:59 PM	It all goes back to what the user is doing with his or her account therefore the ISP is not liable but if the ISP doesn't do anything about the user account then there may be a case of the ISP being liable for not closing the account of the user commiting illegal activities. The law is clear folks.
hellfire Jan 30, 2010 8:48 AM	Unfortunately whatever the result in this case we will be treated to an appeal in a higher court. However AFACT should realise that it is their responsibility to protect the rights to their members copyright and that ISP's are not obligated to do this for them free of charge and at considerable cost. If IFACT wish the sharing of their music and movies to stop then they should make the costs of their DVD's and CD's cheeper or available as a download from their own sites at a fraction of the cost of the product in a store. Then the incentive to share or copy would be gone and their members would be making money. A side benefit would be better copies for those that are downloading.
anonymous Jan 30, 2010 12:05 PM	It may not be a coincidence that the content corporations brought this action in Australia at this time. It may be that after many years of conservative government we have weaker consumer laws than some other countries, and the industry mouthpiece may have decided to move now rather than later in case there are some consumer-friendly changes. @Sams: great point!
Slatts Jan 30, 2010 9:01 PM	No sense pre-empting the judgement. And I think itnews may well have found the reader for their weekly news video. I was particularly impressed by the low tech approach to picture in picture.
Digger11 Feb 1, 2010 10:26 AM	@Sams Legality and morality ???? so it is o.k. to steal something if you don't feel guilty about it or if the person you steal it from is rich and doesn't need the money ??? Ridiculous
izevaka Feb 1, 2010 12:46 PM	@Digger11 I will grant you the right to claim that copyright infrongement is theft (since that is what pro Big Content copyright maximalist trolls on the internet do, and is, of course, a fallacy). This case was never about theft and iiNet was never accused of theft. So... want to try that again?
Rhino Feb 1, 2010 4:35 PM	@Pb1, you are right the law is clear, but they can't disconnect someone based on a flimsy claim by AFACT. I'm going to ring the motor vehicle license issuer in your state and tell them you've broken the law on numerous occasions, and to have your license cancelled. Should they do it? Absolutely not without iron clad proof. The same applies here. iiNet received numerous complaints and based on these complaints they are supposed to police the copyright holders rights? Not with out solid proof and those notices are not solid proof. We have the police here in this country to do that. It is their job to investigate and prosecute crimes. If AFACT had conclusive proof then let them issue the notice to the ISP, but they should have gone to the police as well or even instead of going to the ISP. Targeting the ISP is a much quicker and easier target than prosecuting the actual copyright infringer.
Sams Feb 1, 2010 4:53 PM	Me: "Always keep in mind that legality is not the same [as] morality." (typo corrected) Digger: "@Sams Legality and morality ???? " You believe they are the same!? So we'll put you down as believing whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral? Not even hard line coppers are that limited in their views.
deonast Feb 1, 2010 6:39 PM	Digger Legality and morality are not bed fellows. The legal system has nothing to do with right or wrong, morality or Justice. The legal system is about interpretations of the law, that is a Judge or registrar interprets the law based on evidence and legal arguments presented. So no matter what the moral majority may think this should not impact legal decisions, well they are not supposed to anyway.
Ace Feb 3, 2010 11:09 AM	There is some merit to @Diggers comment. Law is supposed to reflect a society's morals, although possibly not its ethics. Go to different countries and you will see what may appear to be absurd laws, but they reflect that society's morals. At least to some extent. Laws are tricky things, because over-specified put together, they leave too much latitude and are easily got around, yet under-specified (too big in scope) they appear draconian, and may not reflect the laws intention. I'm sure we've all heard of people getting off something through a technical glitch in the law. Then conversely, we have teenagers unable to drive some fantastically safe small cars because of a blanket ban on them driving turbocharged cars. Laws also get old. Like this one "Bars are required to stable, water and feed the horses of their patrons." (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/international/australia) So while laws are supposed to reflect a society's morality, it is not an easy task to achieve.
deonast Feb 3, 2010 5:41 PM	Ace you are not wrong, also as you note laws get old and become out of touch with shifting moral values of a society. The problem is there is so much precedent, laws built on preceding events that it becomes very hard to disentangle what are outdated or outmoded laws. One bad precedent (that is a decision that many would believe is not good for the majority, or isn't now) could lead to many more decisions based upon it. Perhaps a massive rewrite and clean up of laws every 50 years or so is required, but who would have the right or be trustworthy enough to embark on such a venture and the laws would still not suit everybody. In summary the law gives me a headache. So I might stay clear from now on.
KJ Feb 4, 2010 7:39 AM	I'll just repeat myself again and again until those who fall for propaganda understand. Non commercial copyright infringement is NOT a crime. It is not theft. It is not criminal. It is not even illegal. Their is no law against it. May as well say that lending a book is a criminal offence. No matter how much AFACT and their ilk want it to be, it is not, (yet!). sigh. At best "making available" may be liable for civil prosecution. AFAIK no Australian individual has ever been successfully prosecuting for p2p sharing. But AFACT et al. know that no Aussie court/jury is likely to award massive damages vs. some poor sod sharing a few songs (unlike the US) so this is their back door method to "criminalise" and "punish offenders". Let's just hope iinet kill this attempted snatch of rights and an attempt to create an Internet ISP police force.
btone Feb 4, 2010 10:44 AM	Well its all moot now. Unless AFACT and their price gouging masters want to squander millions more going after the torrent sites (which simply regenerate if cropped) or back to having 12 dufii awarding a few million per song against poor black folks in the land of the free, they need to have a long look at themselves. The judgement today is so definitive they should consider suing their legal advisors for false pretences. One small step for an ISP, one giant leap for common sense and fairness.
deonast Feb 4, 2010 11:54 PM	I think AFACT will now look into grounds for an appeal but more importantly will look into Lobbying the government for legislation. No doubt piggybacking on Net filtering legislation will look tempting to them. Blocking bit torrent protocols will sound appealing as Justice Cowdroy mentioned that it was "use of BitTorrent software that enabled the breach". I don't think we have seen the end of AFACT's work yet.