iiNet beats AFACT (good news for Torrent users)

[cplagz]

Cliff notes - this has been a long running trial with hundred+ page submissions, expert witnesses .etc against iiNet and "breach of copyright" via it's users and Torrents.

Justice Cowdroy just handed the verdict down that iiNet wins:)
http://delimiter.com.au/2010/02/04/iinet-wins-video-piracy-trial/

[protecon]

Awesome.
Precedence is a bitch :)

But as I think Malone said once, without serious breaches of privacy, you couldn't hold Auspost responsible for people sending illegal substances through the mail.

[Nemi]

you can't beat the demand for torrentz

you can deliver the content via the web with embedded advertising however.

Even if they won there was a lot of ways around isp level blocking.

[HomeDawwg]

Great news! Im with iinet and use torrents a fair bit, so its reassuring to know

[shifted]

Fuck yes, this is good shit. :D

[protecon]

http://delimiter.com.au/2010/02/04/afact-appeals-to-govt-over-iitrial/

Love this bit;


The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) today said it was disappointed by its losing position in the internet piracy trial against local ISP iiNet, but said it believed the verdict was not what the Federal Government wanted.

Was that a threat?
When will people stop voting for this Government so Conroy can eat a dick.

[[Jacek]]

For a good copyright documentary, youtube "RIP - a remix manifesto"

Available for free on youtube in about 9 parts

[TJ]

How does this affect my access to youporn?

[Phyber]

And mine to fucktube?

[protecon]

http://www.watoday.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-piracy-fight-takes-body-blow-20100204-nge0.html


The case, while brought by the film studios, also has a big impact on the music industry, which was hoping for a precedent it could use to force ISPs to co-operate on reducing online piracy. Sabiene Heindl, general manager of the music industry's anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations, said: ''Today's Federal Court decision suggests that copyright owners broadly may have no choice but to sue individuals for illegal file-sharing. This would be a most unfortunate outcome.''

They still can't admit they fucked up and should have embraced peer-to-peer instead of shunning it. They know suing individuals is never going to be a solution, however they have to appear to be attempting to control the conduct of digital "pirates" yarrrrrr.

[NanG]

thank god intelligence has prevailed in court this was a retarded case and should of been put in the bin the second it was raised.

[P100_Ute]

http://courtlists.fedcourt.gov.au/courtlistings.aspx?id=1

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
New South Wales Registry
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Level 17
Law Courts Building
Queen's Square
SYDNEY, 2000

Justice Emmett, Justice Jagot, Justice Nicholas Court No. 1, Level 21
2:15 PM Judgment
1 (P)NSD179/2010 ROADSHOW FILMS PTY LTD & ORS v IINET LTD
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/249187,breaking-iinet-victorious-as-film-industry-appeal-dismissed.aspx

The full bench of the Federal Court has dismissed the film industry's appeal against a February 2010 judgment, which found ISP iiNet had not authorised copyright infringement on its network.

Today in the Federal Court in Sydney, Justice Emmett said that the court agreed with the film industry's assertion that rights holders' copyright had been infringed but disputed the "characterisation of the infringements".

"I have concluded that the appeal should be dismissed; however, it's fair to say that the appellants [AFACT] have been successful [on some grounds], therefore the parties should be heard further," he said.

The parties have been asked to make submissions "as to the costs" of the first instance and the appeal.

Despite the appeal being squashed, the court warned the ISP industry that rights holders might still find an avenue for further action.

"Even though the Copyright Owners are not entitled to the relief claimed in this proceeding, it does not follow that that is an end of the matter," the Judgment said.

"It is clear that the questions raised in the proceeding are ongoing. It does not necessarily follow that there would never be authorisation within the meaning of s[ection] 101 of the Copyright Act by a carriage service provider, where a user of the services provided by the carriage service provider engages in acts of infringement such as those about which complaint is made in this proceeding.

"It does not necessarily follow from the failure of the present proceeding that circumstances could not exist whereby iiNet might in the future be held to have authorised primary acts of infringement on the part of users of the services provided to its customers under its customer service agreements."

The ISP appears to have scraped through on the numbers - with Justices Emmett and Nicholas dismissing the appeal, and Justice Jagot preferring the argument of the film industry.

Representing the Hollywood studios, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) had appealed a Federal Court judgment by Justice Dennis Cowdroy that found iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement activities of users of its network.

Despite winning the original case, iiNet also lodged an appeal in an attempt to tighten up parts of Cowdroy's original ruling that did not land in the ISP's favour.

The Full Bench appeal was an important escalation in the high-profile case, but the verdict is unlikely to resolve the battle. It is widely expected that AFACT will lodge a further appeal with the High Court in Canberra.

Experts believed that content rights holders needed to prove they had exhausted all available legal options before they sought Government intervention on the issue of copyright and internet piracy.

Stay tuned to iTnews for a full analysis of the full bench decision.

[Mad_Aussie]

http://bravesblogger.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/c19-rejoicing.jpg

[cplagz]

yessss eat a dick AFACT

[Ryan1080]

Awesome news!

[satch]

The Full Bench appeal was an important escalation in the high-profile case, but the verdict is unlikely to resolve the battle. It is widely expected that AFACT will lodge a further appeal with the High Court in Canberra.


Lets not get carried away just yet.... looks like the pingpingpingpings arent giving up.

[JNR man]

Will take the little wins when we get them they dont happen that often

[Dagon]

THIS is why I'm giving my money to iiNet and not a cheaper but just as good ISP like AMNET.

[fourseven]

LOL at just as good ISP... Amnet are nothing like the quality of iiNet.

[stormtrooper]

It looks like, as satch pointed out, AFACT can still appeal to the High Court however the appeal has to be accepted. However, fuck, if they havn't been told enough times to "fuck off no one cares", 1 more loss for them through the High Court would be amusing.

As for filtering at the ISP level anyway, I'd love to see them filter SSL encapsulated traffic. The feds would need a warrant to be able to inspect the stream.

Completely agree with Four7 regarding the amnet comment. Michael Malone is a bloody champ. He knows how to run an ISP and knows what his customers want and will fight for their rights as Australian Citizens. Iinet is not the 2nd largest ISP in Australia for nothing ;)

[fsbk]

and this is why i pay that little bit extra for westnet/iinet

[mr_rotary]

Iinet is not the 2nd largest ISP in Australia for nothing ;)I havn't been with them for nearly 11 years for nothing. Always faultless service and any problems are quickly answered and sorted.

Vodaphone should take a leaf out of their book.

[Fukushima]

meh, iinet had no ports when i signed up 5 years ago and amnet havn't given me any reason to go through the inconvenience of churning

wondering how heavily monitored NBN will be, though in theory your service provider will be amnet/iinet etc

[stormtrooper]

I havn't been with them for nearly 11 years for nothing. Always faultless service and any problems are quickly answered and sorted.

Yeah I was with Wantree internet and then stayed with iinet when iinet bought them out at the end of the 90's. I've never experienced bad service from them at all.

[P100_Ute]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top-stories/hollywood-hits-back-at-iinet/story-e6frg12l-1226114036516


WA internet service provider iiNet is facing a fresh legal challenge from Hollywood studios who will take their fight over illegal movie and TV downloads to the High Court.

A group of 34 movie studios and TV production companies, headed by Village Roadshow, will take their fight over illegal movie and TV downloads to the highest court in the land after winning an application to appeal.

The major Hollywood studios are hoping to overturn a ruling that WA internet service provider iiNet could not be held responsible for illegal file-sharing by customers.

The group argues iiNet knew its customers were breaching their copyrights but did nothing to crack down on the illegal trade.

iiNet, Australia's third-largest internet service provider after Telstra and Optus, is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.

Peer-to-peer file sharing made up as much as half of all internet traffic hosted by iiNet, according to evidence tendered to the court during the earlier hearings.

The studios, which include Colombia, Universal and Disney, argue when iiNet was told of the piracy, it should have tried to halt it but iiNet argued it was impossible do so without breaching the Telecommunications Act.

Movie pirates use peer-to-peer file sharing programs such as LimeWire or websites such as Swedish-based The Piratebay to share movies for free.

LimeWire allows users to exchange files directly with each other, without central servers.

The legal alternatives include Telstra and ReelTime, which also offer time-limited rentals.

The studios are hoping to overturn a full Federal Court decision handed down in February.

The case, running since November 2008, will not be heard by the High Court until next year.

It is the first case of its kind to be run anywhere in the world.

Most pirated films are made using hand-held cameras in cinemas and are then shared over the internet.

Faster broadband speeds and greater access to broadband in recent years has enabled rates of piracy to skyrocket.

A study commissioned by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft said piracy cost the Australian economy $1.4 billion in the year to July 2010.

iiNet has about 1.3 million subscribers across broadband, telephone and mobile broadband and phone, and generates annual earnings of about $90 million.

In the UK, internet service providers have sent warning letters to customers suspected of illegal file-sharing.

And last month an English court ruled England's largest ISP must block access to a site, which breaches film studios copyright.

AUSTRALIA'S MOST PIRATED

Roadshow Films - Happy Feet
Disney - Enchanted
Universal - Atonement
Paramount Pictures - Transformers
Warner Bros - Batman Begins
Colombia Pictures - Hancock
20th Century Fox - The Simpsons
Seven Network - Bones
Sony Pictures - Spider-Man 3
Dreamworks - The Heartbreak Kid

[anton]

meh, iinet had no ports when i signed up 5 years ago and amnet havn't given me any reason to go through the inconvenience of churning

wondering how heavily monitored NBN will be, though in theory your service provider will be amnet/iinet etc

The NBN Will probably not be implemented in WA, the government will most likely make us pay for all the "important" eastern states then tell us they cannot afford it and we will get nothing

[crabman]

^^

So true, just like how for every dollar sent to Canberra via tax associated with road use we only get 33cents backs. Eastern states = More important