Posts Tagged ‘iiNet’

AFACT v iiNet: Tiny Bits of BitTorrent Transfers Aren’t Illegal

iiNet’s chief barrister argued today that there is insufficient evidence to show that when customers shared movies using BitTorrent, they shared “substantial parts” of said material, an essential requirement for proving infringement. Furthermore, in order to verify AFACT claims, iiNet itself would have to infringe copyright.

AFACT v iiNet: Safe Harbor Protection Intact, Says iiNet

iiNet’s chief barrister told the court today that the only proven ‘infringer’ in the case was AFACT’s own investigator, which secured iiNet’s protection under Safe Harbor provisions. He added that the number of claimed infringements were inflated and iiNet had complied fully with privacy aspects of the Telecoms Act.

AFACT v iiNet: Judge Asked To Disregard iiNet Evidence

Continuing with his closing submissions, AFACT’s chief barrister claimed there were contradictions in statements given to the court by iiNet witnesses regarding anti-piracy tracking data. On this basis he asked the judge to disregard their evidence, going on to attack claims that the ISP took “reasonable steps” to deal with piracy.

AFACT v iiNet: Barrister Tears Into iiNet Key Witnesses

The case continues between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. As AFACT makes its closing submissions, their chief barrister Tony Bannon has torn into the evidence and credibility of iiNet’s key witnesses, CEO Michael Malone and chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby.

AFACT v iiNet: ISP: “We Should Not Be Doing AFACT’s Work”

Day thirteen of the trial between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. The ISP’s chief regulatory officer recalled difficulty with terms used by AFACT in their infringement notices and reiterated that the ISP would not forward them without a court order. AFACT submitted a draft ISP code of conduct in respect of dealing with malware.

AFACT v iiNet: It’s Impossible to Block The Pirate Bay

Day twelve of the trial between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. iiNet CEO Michael Malone was questioned by AFACT barrister Tony Bannon for the fourth consecutive day, this time about the world’s largest tracker, The Pirate Bay, and any actions the ISP had taken to block customer access to it.

AFACT v iiNet: Half of All iiNet Traffic is BitTorrent

Day eleven of the trial between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. The ISP’s CEO Michael Malone took the stand for the third day running and faced allegations that iiNet encouraged users to download music and TV shows, and actively pursued high bandwidth customers in order to boost company profits.

AFACT v iiNet: – Pirates Will Be Cut Off With a Court Order

Day ten of the trial between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. AFACT barrister Tony Bannon seems to have difficulty in taking on board something that iiNet CEO Michael Malone has said dozens of times already. Yes, iiNet will happily disconnect copyright infringers, but not solely on the basis of an AFACT allegation.

AFACT v iiNet: Day 9 – AFACT Attacks iiNet Piracy Policy

Day nine of the trial between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. Today iiNet CEO Michael Malone was extensively cross-examined by AFACT’s senior counsel over his company’s piracy policy and moves he took to change that of Westnet, the ISP iiNet acquired in 2008.

AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking

Day eight of the trial between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. Today’s proceedings centered around the quality of the evidence supplied to the court by AFACT. It was ascertained that AFACT likely counted breaches more than once, with one of their lawyers admitting that one method used was not 100% accurate.

AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement?

Day seven of the trial between AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. In cross-examination of anti-piracy bosses from the movie studios, Paramount said it would complain to BitTorrent Inc about the unauthorized use of its logo, while AFACT’s boss was forced to admit his investigators could have themselves condoned infringements.