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

Craig Sanders cas at taz.net.au
Fri Nov 28 08:17:56 AEDT 2008

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 06:46:15AM +1100, Stilgherrian wrote:
> 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?

maybe if the movie industry etc wants the ISP to pass on their
allegations then their allegation should clearly state that it was made
or authorised by a specific individual (e.g. the CEO or Secretary or
other responsible person of the industry front organisation depending
on the legal structure of the organisation) so that their client has
all the information they need in case they wish to pursue a libel claim
against their accuser.

if they want to make such claims then they should be fully accountable
for them.

they are, after all, attempting to cause financial, personal, and
reputational harm to a person on the basis of an unsupported allegation.

IANAL, i just think they ought to be responsible for whatever harm
their claims cause to people.


craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

More information about the Link mailing list