[LINK] More about iiNet suit - legal opinion on their side it seems
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Wed Nov 26 06:57:14 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
> third party.
> 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
> different story,
> 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.
Particularly of interest is this quote:
> Of course White’s view is not shared by everyone. Ian McDonald, the
> Senior Legal Officer at the Australian Copyright Council disagrees. He
> believes that iiNet infringed copyright by virtue of making copies of
> infringing material either in their cache or even by virtue of being
> stored temporarily in their routers. McDonald believes that “Where
> material is being cached temporarily through an ISP’s network then
> they have reproduction occurring even if they are not aware of it.”
> McDonald believe the issue will come down to what remedy AFACT will
> have against the ISP which could include an account of lost profits or
> other damages.
Now, this is a big "shut down the Internet" aspect of the copyright
owners' case, because the ISP's cached / routed copies of data would be
infringing even if the customer is purchasing legal content.
If I were a complete tragic and decided I must rent movies over the
Internet, then what appears on my screen is a legal copy. However, the
ISP hasn't purchased the content, yet it is still creating a copy, most
certainly within its routers even if it does not cache the content. So I
can't see how the Internet can be used to deliver anything without the
technology itself "infringing", at least in the insanely opportunistic
view of the Australian Copyright Council.
More information about the Link