Anti-Piracy Group Drops Ridiculous Claim Against ISP

Written by enigmax on September 30, 2009 

With just days to go before the BitTorrent piracy case involving Aussie ISP iiNet goes to court, anti-piracy group AFACT has made a second significant legal retreat. The group, which represents Hollywood movie studios, has now dropped its claims that iiNet engaged in primary acts of copyright infringement.

Next week the case of Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the Seven Network (all under the umbrella of AFACT), against Australian ISP iiNet will finally get to court.

AFACT’s position in the case – officially known as Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Ltd – is that iiNet “failed to take reasonable steps, including enforcing its own terms and conditions, to prevent known unauthorized use of copies of the companies’ films and TV programs by iiNet’s customers via its network.”

AFACT previously demanded disconnection for those iiNet subscribers alleged to have infringed their copyrights by sharing material using BitTorrent. iiNet refused to comply and legal action against them followed.

In addition to AFACT’s assertion that iiNet committed secondary acts of infringement, i.e it is responsible for the copyright infringing actions of its subscribers (something it denies), AFACT had earlier claimed that iiNet engaged in primary infringement too.

Now, just days before the trial begins, AFACT has withdrawn this key part of its claim against iiNet.

The ridiculously optimistic primary infringement claim centered around AFACT’s assertion that iiNet cached the illicit content being shared by their file-sharing customers on their own network, which effectively turned the ISP into a distributor of copyright works. Of course, this is how all ISPs and indeed the Internet works – by simply copying digital data from one place to another.

A spokesman for iiNet told AustralianIT that the withdrawal indicated that AFACT’s legal team had earlier “fundamentally misunderstood” how an ISP works and had been “clutching at straws”.

Indeed, it is very difficult to disagree with this assessment, but AFACT remains upbeat.

“The authorization part of the case, which says iiNet failed to prevent online copyright theft of customers, has always been the main part of the case. The cache and conversion claims were always subsidiary,” said an AFACT spokesperson.

This isn’t the first time that AFACT has removed a key claim against iiNet. Earlier the anti-piracy group alleged iiNet was a primary copyright infringer and directly responsible when it refused to disconnect alleged pirates within its subscriber base. The allegation, know as “conversion”, is that iiNet interfered with the studio’s “right of possession”, a breach of their rights. It was later withdrawn.

The outcome of the case will be hugely significant in Australia. If AFACT wins, all ISPs in Australia could be held legally liable if they are made aware of copyright infringers on their network yet fail to take action against them.

Previously:

Next:

47 Responses

1 Sep 30, 2009 at 11:48 by Alex

Great to see an ISP who stick up for its customers. Threats seems to be a key strategy for the anti-piracy groups.

Alex
http://piratene.ws

2 Sep 30, 2009 at 11:57 by Matt

“The allegation, know as “conversion”, is that…” should that be “known” ? =)

3 Sep 30, 2009 at 11:59 by www.eZee.se

As long as they dont get a version of the currupt, fuckwit, on the take, sly, double eyed shify son of a bitch judge Thomas Norström…

Justice may have a chance to prevail and AFACT given the finger while iiNET cleared of all (dumb) accusations.

4 Sep 30, 2009 at 12:20 by chris

As an iiNet user it’s good to see an isp sticking up for their customers, I wish them good luck !

5 Sep 30, 2009 at 12:20 by lach

iinet will win..

6 Sep 30, 2009 at 12:27 by Sick of this

No they won’t, it’ll be just as ridiculous as the PB case, no doubt they will pay off the judge.

you want a just solution?
http://www.ipredator.se/

7 Sep 30, 2009 at 12:41 by Anonymous

They make hard claims and later drop them, this is to abuse the justice system so that they get more “support” from the court on different issues, like raiding or possibly disconnecting/preventive actions.

Mafia tactics that costs the accused money and time.

8 Sep 30, 2009 at 12:42 by Comeoncomcast

lol Seems AFART are sweating :P

Go iiNet!! and BoB lol > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjQWZZ_6fYA

AFART have got nothing, and they are running out of time to prove false theories

Nothing but metadata

Viva la Pirat Byran <3 God bless iiNet and God Speed

9 Sep 30, 2009 at 12:55 by Yo Do Yo

Here’s where my votes going;

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/aussie-pirate-party-plans-election-onslaught-20090930-gbvd.html

10 Sep 30, 2009 at 12:58 by he he he

http://www.ipredator.se/

works fine from Australia. Recommended.

11 Sep 30, 2009 at 13:45 by Where is Stasha

Off Topic but just wondering if there will ever be another episode of TorrentFreak TV

Its been a long time and is missed

12 Sep 30, 2009 at 14:00 by Praveen

Nice post and theme.
-http://praveenbattula.blogspot.com

13 Sep 30, 2009 at 14:22 by Anonymous

Aussie here.

Now drop the rest of the stupid claims and drop the case already, and get the hell out of our country. [yeah, channel 7 can get out too tbh]

14 Sep 30, 2009 at 14:54 by Oz

http://pirateparty.org.au

Just dropping this here for all the other Australians

15 Sep 30, 2009 at 15:00 by Anonymous

A case like this somehow seems just as illogical as if one would sue the post for transporting counterfeit Rolex watches.

In any case if an ISP can be held responsible for transporting copyright infringing data, than it would make sense to sue an ISP for delivering spam for example, i.e. anything illegal.

16 Sep 30, 2009 at 15:14 by dude

Good job iinet! Dont give up!

17 Sep 30, 2009 at 15:16 by Joe Bloggs

If someone steals your property, you go to the police. If they investigate and find you to be correct, they then charge the thief and then it goes to court where penalties and compensation are arranged. Why then can the alleged victim (AFACT) demand without evidence the return of something from an individual (ISP) who has only a business relationship with the alledged thief (proof not established yet), and be sued if they don’t comply?

Is AFACT claiming to be the police? Isn’t that impersonating an officer of the law, which is an offence?

18 Sep 30, 2009 at 15:24 by Gordon

@17 Joe Bloggs:
That would be the biggest problem with all of this crap that most people seem to be missing. Where is the law in all of these lawsuits? Shouldn’t the law be involved /prior/ to the _law_suit?

19 Sep 30, 2009 at 15:32 by John Woods

ROTFL these “anti piracy” groups are a bunch of wingnuts! LOL

RT
http://www.total-privacy.net.tc

20 Sep 30, 2009 at 15:37 by Dissenter

http://pirateparty.org.au I’ve be voting for these guys too.

21 Sep 30, 2009 at 15:54 by Ghostofchris

iiNet will win. I wonder if AFACT is dumb enough to give Telstra a poke.

22 Sep 30, 2009 at 16:30 by How Funny...

iiNet FTW!!!

Had a look at PPAU site & 1000 members already…

Great to see :0)

23 Sep 30, 2009 at 16:34 by Anonymous

I don’t understand, we forbid drugs because they harm our children why we don’t forbid music?

It turns our children into criminals. So artists should be held accountable too after all they fuel the criminal behavior with their products.

24 Sep 30, 2009 at 16:36 by yay

Great news!

Fight for an open internet! http://tinyurl.com/yapbs6f

25 Sep 30, 2009 at 16:52 by Anonymous

great news now hopefully other isps follow this example and dont give up fighting

26 Sep 30, 2009 at 19:27 by Roo

Common law sux.

27 Sep 30, 2009 at 19:38 by iFox

Go iiNet! I hope they win and show to the world that all those “anti-piracy” organizations are doing nothing but scamming and bullying to get their way.

28 Sep 30, 2009 at 19:43 by Ridiculous

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/29/bbc-hd-encryption

I know this is not the place and I apologize but anybody had read about the BBC being strong armed by outside corporations to encrypt their TV stream and fall into a trap that would ban not only open source from uk TV sets and boxes but surrender power to administer anything to a body that have no interest in the public who actually pays for it.

29 Sep 30, 2009 at 21:37 by Anon

Not surprised ReasonedMind isn’t trolling this post yet. ISP’s are not responsible for what others do, only the people themselves are responsible. Thats like blaming alcohol companies for causing drunk driving accidents, or banning kitchen knives because they could harm someone..Then holding the company responsible when something happens with one of their products.
That’s why they backed out, because they dont have a legal claim to blame an ISP for what their users are doing.

30 Sep 30, 2009 at 21:41 by Anon

They realize that they can’t file individual suits against users because its too costly and rarely has an incentive for them, so they’re switching strategy and instead taking on the people with money and an actual face they can pinpoint it on.
This card has been played before and it lost. Seriously, companies need to look at past examples before playing games.

31 Sep 30, 2009 at 22:35 by u r all lamers

AFACT will win! Wake up people, the movie industry has been winning cases left and right. Of course AFACT remains upbeat, the people involved in deciding the outcomes of such cases are totally clueless about file sharing or internet for that matter.

What goes on in the court room won’t matter one bit. Just like the TPB trial, it will come down to politics with judge/jury biases against the ISP’s case. Even if the isp crushes AFACT during trial, it won’t matter one bit. The movie industry has all the money, all the power, therefore all the wins!

32 Sep 30, 2009 at 23:09 by michael8124

You know like in the summer when you get a fly that lands on your arm, you shoo it away, and it lands on the exact same spot over and over again, and doesn’t go away until you kill it?

These anti-pirate/pro-copyright groups are just as annoying. AFACT can go suck a banana. I wish iiNet the best of luck, but with all those movie companies being represented by AFACT, it’s gonna be a tough battle.

33 Oct 01, 2009 at 01:12 by Dan

We can just use the post office excuse with this one. The only difference i can think of, is the post office isn’t efficient at copyright infringement like a ISP would be.

“iiNet failed to prevent online copyright theft of customers, has always been the main part of the case”

ANYWAYS GO iiNet!!!

34 Oct 01, 2009 at 02:52 by theorang3box

Fu*k the MPAA, and FU*K the RIAA….
April 1, 2006 – Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) chairman Dan Glickman and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) president Cary Sherman today announced the historic merger of the two organizations. The newly-created entity is being called the Music And Film Industry Association of America™, Inc.
LOL
http://mafiaa.org/
World Police for the Music and Movie Industry artists of America.
This is The Dumb-arses trying to shut down the Bay and half the net!

35 Oct 01, 2009 at 03:18 by Krakak

I think i will write a thoughtful email to AFACTs expert witness, Nigel Carson of Ferrier Hodgson Group:

nigel.carson@fh.com.au

36 Oct 01, 2009 at 04:50 by Anonymous

Thomas Norström should hanged!

37 Oct 01, 2009 at 04:59 by Predator

“Even if the isp crushes AFACT during trial, it won’t matter one bit. The movie industry has all the money, all the power, therefore all the wins!”

Ya, but we have the guns and the bullets and the will to use them.

Just a though.

38 Oct 01, 2009 at 05:12 by ---

Because we all know how great youtube’s flagging and DMCA system is when someone just accuses you of breaking the rules.

Great, so these knobends are just going to pass in some huge list of IPs, accused of wrong-doing without any furthur evidence, and get them taken off the internet.

I hope ISPs stick up for themselves and point out how much this is going to cost all of us, just so these cock suckers can regains that 6% to 7% loss in music sales.

Oh run for the hills, the music industry is dead because we figure everyone who downloads a track, would have gone out and bought the CD at full price! Oh the loss in sales!

39 Oct 01, 2009 at 10:51 by D2LV

http://www.hahastop.com/pictures/How_Green.jpg

40 Oct 01, 2009 at 13:57 by John

AFACT will win!

By how much will be interesting, it will be directly related to how big the behind the curtain dealings are.

41 Oct 01, 2009 at 16:11 by JordSti

AFACT are fuckin idiot, if they win they will kill the Australian ISP, which ISP will continue to offer the service if they need to monitor all our customer..

42 Oct 01, 2009 at 20:13 by MultiCast-DHT Tunnels

http://www.macuser.co.uk/news/269620/carphone-warehouse-threatens-court-action-to-stop-file-sharing-disconnections.html

Carphone Warehouse threatens court action to stop file sharing disconnections 9:35AM, Thursday 1st October 2009

Carphone Warehouse has threatened to take the Government to court if his company is forced to disconnect file-sharers.

43 Oct 02, 2009 at 02:10 by Anonymous

How do these companies obtain user data? Like IP addresses and logs of downloaded files? Isn’t that illegal without a court order?

44 Oct 02, 2009 at 06:09 by Catprog

@43 Oct 02, 2009 at 02:10 by Anonymous

What they do is connect to the swarms and get the IP’s that way. No court order needed.

Then they pass the IP along to the ISP. No need for any personal data.

45 Oct 02, 2009 at 07:58 by StevO

go leave your signature:
http://www.copyrightalliance.org/letter/ im Pirate Pete get your few words in atleast. Let your voice be heard to President Obama too. This is a letter being sent to Obama.

46 Oct 05, 2009 at 19:03 by Ninja

So far there are only few cases where the MAFIAA friends were actually right in their claims. Wheter they are gonna open their eyes and follow successful initiatives like Canadian Thorny one is yet to be seen.

47 Oct 06, 2009 at 00:17 by ater

It’s not an ISP sticking up for its customers, it’s an ISP afraid of being legally held responsible for the actions of thousands of people it does not control (sets a bad precedent requiring more resources than an ISP wants to have to spend tracking its customers, and possibly more than an ISP can legally do). It just so happens that lines up with protecting its customers.

Responses are closed

All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.