[LINK] More about iiNet suit - legal opinion on their side it seems

[Eric Scheid]

On 26/11/08 6:57 AM, "Richard Chirgwin" <rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Particularly of interest is this quote:
>> Of course White¹s 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 ³Where
>> material is being cached temporarily through an ISP¹s network then
>> they have reproduction occurring even if they are not aware of it.²
>> 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 someone were to go put on a public performance of some work (which they
have hold copyright in) within physical proximity of the offices of the ACC
... would they be able to claim that the *echoes* created by the ACC
building count as "infringing copies"?

e.