[LINK] More about iiNet suit - legal opinion on their side it seems
stil at stilgherrian.com
Wed Nov 26 06:46:15 AEDT 2008
On 26/11/2008, at 4:19 AM, Michael Still wrote:
> Rick Welykochy wrote:
>> Jan Whitaker wrote:
>>> [What is Exetel doing bad-mouthing iiNet? Sour grapes perhaps?]
>> "Unlike iiNet, Exetel forwards infringement complaints from the movie
>> industry to its customers. Linton said iiNet brought the legal
>> on itself by failing to play ball."
Linton's comment is revealing. "Refusing to play ball" means he
reckons the rules of the game are that an ISP must/should pass on the
infringement complaints it receives from "the movie industry", and
that iiNet isn't playing by established rules. Why? Such notices are,
I understand, "mere" claims by the industry, i.e. allegations, not
legally-proven statements of fact. Just because "the movie industry"
has a profile and Nicole Kidman on their side doesn't make their
"complaints" any more valid than a "complaint" from any other random
I have a business. If some random person or company, one who is
neither a client nor a supplier, comes to me and says "One of your
customers has been causing me grief and I want you to make them stop.
Give them this legal-looking threatening letter", why should I even
give them the time of day?
Now if the random person was a court order or a search warrant or
something else which had a bit of legal due process behind it, it's a
This in a nutshell is the question which this lawsuit will perhaps
answer. There's a nice legal analysis of AFACT's claim at APC. It's
worth reading in full because this will probably an important test of
the "safe harbour" provisions for ISPs in the Copyright Act.
Internet, IT and Media Consulting, Sydney, Australia
mobile +61 407 623 600
fax +61 2 9516 5630
ABN 25 231 641 421
More information about the Link