When three years of discussions yielded no results, in November 2008 Hollywood movie studios under the banner of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) sued local ISP iiNet. AFACT hoped that through legal action all ISPs could be held responsible for copyright infringements carried out by their customers.

In April 2012 the case came to a close, Hollywood lost, and it was back to the drawing board alongside fresh hopes for peaceful settlement.

Ever since, intermittent negotiations have continued between the ISPs and rightsholders, in the hope that the former would agree to implement some kind of graduated response/warning system on behalf of the latter in order to positively influence the behavior of pirating customers.

Last December, iiNet withdrew from the talks, declaring they’d had enough of dealing with rightsholders who refuse to make official content available at a reasonable price.

And now, six months later, with no further talks having taken place since, it seems the whole initiative has ground to a halt. David Epstein, chief of ISP Optus, told The Australian that his company could now back iiNet’s stance.

“We support a co-operative resolution to the issue but this requires general consensus among players and like treatment of any participant in a trial. We have not yet seen a model that enables this,” he said.

Despite voices to the contrary, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) said that the talks hadn’t been abandoned and hope remains that an agreement can be reached. After suing iiNet and failing, they have few options left.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Their aim was to hold the ISP responsible for the copyright infringements of its subscribers, an effort that ultimately failed in April this year.

For two and a half years, iiNet – who never engaged in any wrongdoing – were distracted by this massive legal action. Many of their key staff had to take huge amounts of time out from their normal roles in order to fend off the Hollywood attack dogs.

With the case now closed iiNet is getting back to its core business, but it’s apparent that the bad taste left behind after the earlier failed negotiations and subsequent legal action is going to take longer to go away. Reading through a blog post today by iiNet chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby, one has to wonder if the damage will ever be repaired.

Dalby’s article precedes a closed-door meeting today between Australia’s major ISPs, AFACT and other rightsholders, a consumer group, the Internet Society of Australia and the government. The topic is once again online infringement and from Dalby’s tone today and comments he made previously, it’s clear that iiNet have already lost faith in the process.

“I don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that the likely conclusion will be negligible change; as has been the situation since the 2005 Australia – US free trade agreement was signed,” Dalby writes.

“Little, if anything at all, is to be gained by engaging with rights holders for a commercial solution.”

The notion that rights holders cannot be negotiated with towards any mutually useful end is hugely problematic. As highlighted yesterday by RIAA chief Cary Sherman, negotiated agreements are now high on the recording industry’s agenda for moving forward, with ISPs and search engines for example.

But of course, the RIAA and its overseas counterparts haven’t yet sued an ISP in frustration after failing to get what they want, although publicly attacking Google is moving dangerously close to alienating a potentially useful partner. Hollywood has taken the nuclear option, however, and the results are visible on Dalby’s blog in black and white.

“AFACT and other rights holder bodies don’t care much for consumers. As you may have read, Neil Gane of AFACT thinks consumers are “unreasonable” to tell their suppliers of entertainment what they want.

“Actually, AFACT don’t have any customers in Australia, they are all in California, which unfortunately means that consumer pressure is unlikely to have much impact on their strategies. iiNet have suggested that they focus on what the market is demanding, but it’s a waste of breath. Their masters have set the agenda and rights holders will only do their bidding.

“A solution needs to be found but as far as AFACT goes, you might as well be talking to a brick wall,” Dalby continues.

It seems then that having failed in four years of negotiations and more than two and a half years of litigation, the people the studios need onside have already lost faith in reaching a voluntary agreement second time around.

That only leaves two options – having the law changed to favor Hollywood or giving those “unreasonable” consumers what they want. Place your bets gentlemen, please.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The case navigated several layers of the Australian court system, with iiNet winning the initial ruling and all subsequent appeals, before finally ending up in front the High Court in December last year.

The thrust of the case hung on whether iiNet had willingly authorized the copyright infringements of its customers. Lower courts found that iiNet had no duty to police its own networks, even when AFACT supplied so-called proof of infringement by its customers.

Just moments ago, the High Court unanimously dismissed AFACT’s final appeal.

“The Court observed that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright,” a summary of the Court’s findings read.

“Rather, the extent of iiNet’s power to prevent its customers from infringing the appellants’ copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual relationship with its customers.”

The High Court further noted that the warning notices previously sent to iiNet by AFACT when the ISP’s customers allegedly infringed copyright “..did not provide iiNet with a reasonable basis for sending warning notices to individual customers containing threats to suspend or terminate those customers’ accounts.”

Since the notices were inadequate, iiNet could not be considered to have authorized the infringements of its subscribers when it did not act on them.

The High Court sits at the pinnacle of Australia’s legal system and its rulings cannot be appealed. Today’s decision forms a binding legal precedent on all lower Australian courts and will be taken into consideration by judges in countries with comparable legal systems such as India, Canada and the UK.

All of this factored into the reasoning of AFACT and its chief sponsor the MPAA to take legal action against iiNet, as revealed by US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in November 2011. The US Ambassador to Australia in 2008, Robert McCallum, reported back to Washington that iiNet was chosen because it was judged too small to put up a decent legal fight. In the cable, the Ambassador prophetically cautioned the coming legal tussle could be perceived as “…the giant American bullies [versus] little Aussie battlers….”

AFACT could never have known Wikileaks would out the plot, or that the legal case would so spectacularly backfire. Today’s decision will hurt Hollywood’s copyright enforcement agenda on multiple levels. Alongside the setting of an unwanted legal precedent, AFACT has been dealt a significant public relations blow in its ongoing lobbying efforts in Australia.

Prior to the decision, AFACT’s Managing Director Neil Gane told TorrentFreak via email, “Regardless of the outcome [today], the landscape has changed. In the three years since the case commenced, legislators, regulators and courts around the world have recognized that ISPs must play a central role in preventing online copyright theft.”

Anticipating a loss in the case, AFACT began lobbying government and ISPs behind closed doors last December. The process has been widely criticised for a lack of public consultation. While the Australian government has suggested it prefers an industry agreed model for combating copyright infringement to legislation, leaks have revealed AFACT and its lobbying partners have been pressuring for an outcome that forces ISPs into a policing role.

The option of having ISPs forced into that role through the courts has been blunted by today’s High Court decision and it can be expected AFACT will step up their lobbying efforts of law-makers directly.

Update: Both parties held separate conferences following the emphatic 5-0 High Court decision. The mood in the iiNet camp, who stand to recoup $6 million in legal fees, was jubilant.

“We’re very pleased with the results announced in the High Court,” iiNet Chief Regulatory Officer Steve Dalby said. “The five-nil judgement puts us in a much stronger position.”

AFACT’s Neil Gane was expectedly downbeat. “Both judgements in this case recognize that copyright law is no longer equipped to deal with the rate of technological change we have seen since the law of authorization was last tested,” he said.

iiNet CEO Michael Malone was keen to stress the importance of the win. “This is a world first case. No case has gone to judgement in the highest court in the land. I’ve had text messages and emails from people from all over the world,” he said.

Mr Malone said he looked forward to finding solutions to content piracy, but said a large part of the problem was content creators’ unwillingness to make their products available in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Expressing a personal fondness for hit US TV series Game of Thrones, Mr Malone lamented he was not able to access the latest episodes of the show legally in Australia.

Both Mr Malone and Mr Dalby expressed concerns about AFACT’s methods for collecting data on alleged infringers. “I dont’ have any confidence in the notices [of alleged infringement] that we’ve seen,” Mr Dalby said.

Mr Malone added that by standing up to AFACT and its Hollywood backers iiNet had enhanced its reputation in the Australian marketplace. “I’d argue [the court case has] positively impacted our reputation … Our role is to connect customers to the internet and with each other. We’re not going to remove your access without some sort of independent review,” he said.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The meeting, which took place September 23^rd, has been shrouded in secrecy, with few details emerging. What might initially seem as cards being played close to the chest seems to have taken on a more worrying overtone, with revelations today in technology news site Delimiter.

Delimiter, founded by former ZDNet Australia editor Renai Le May, had filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for the minutes of the meeting. The response they received from the Attorney General’s office was less than encouraging.

“This letter is to advise you that this department does not hold documents of the type you are requesting,” Delimiter quotes the reply.

“I am obliged, therefore, to refuse your request under section 24A of the [Freedom of Information] Act. That provision allows an agency to refuse a request if all reasonable steps have been taken to locate the documents sought and it is satisfied that the documents either do not exist or cannot be found.”

Consumer groups like Electronic Frontiers Australia have been very critical of the meeting, as has Pirate Party Australia.

“Not only has the Attorney-General convened secret meetings, now those discussions are secret, with no basic measures of transparency or accountability,” PPAU President Rodney Serkowski told TorrentFreak. “This is of course from a department that wants to implement the retention of all private communications data in Australia.”

Meanwhile Mr Serkowski, on behalf of the Pirate Party, filed his own FOI request on September 30^th including notes and emails relating to the meeting, as well as correspondence about the meeting. The Attorney General’s office has indicated they’ve received it and will try and process it by October 30^th.

Australians have clearly learnt from the lessons of the UK, where the Digital Economy Act was passed thanks to false claims.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In the U.S. the MPAA was the outfit that tipped the authorities off on many of the ‘rogue’ sites that had their domain names seized in the last year. Similarly, in the U.K. the MPAA-funded group FACT carried out most of the investigative work in cases against the operators of the BitTorrent community FileSoup and the streaming site TV-Links.

Today we talk to Gavin “Tex” Warren, a private investigator who worked for the Hollywood backed group AFACT in Australia. While he mostly worked on offline piracy, his inside view allows us to learn more about how the anti-piracy agenda is sold to the outside world.

Warren became a private investigator in 2000, and prior to that he served as a detective in the Australian Federal Police for twelve years. From 2003 until 2008 he worked as an investigator, undercover operative handler and then lead investigator for AFACT. When AFACT moved their priorities from offline piracy to ISPs, they eventually let Warren go.

The Big Score

“Initially AFACT was called the Australasian Film and Video Security Office and was run out of Sydney by Mr Steve Howes,” Warren says, explaining how it all started for him in 2003. “The lead investigator here in Melbourne was another former AFP officer, Greg Hooper.”

“I had an undercover operative who worked for me (name withheld) that I shall refer to as “Short Round”. We were contracted to make purchases of DVDs and back then, VHS tapes of copyright infringing movies. In our first operation which lasted about six months, we had infiltrated a manufacturing “laboratory” and the dodgy sales team at the local trash and treasure market.”

Warren’s team then made so-called ‘trap purchases’ and all the evidence they gathered was then presented to the Victoria Police. The operation resulted in the execution of three simultaneous search warrants, netting about fifteen thousand exhibits, $30,000 cash and a dozen computer towers. It was a great success that was quickly communicated to the media.

“The press were informed and all was tied up in a neat bundle. Column inches were filled, sound bites were created and everyone was happy, except the pirates,” Warren recalls.

“This success ensured that Short Round and I had ongoing work. The AFVSO was subsumed by AFACT soon thereafter. Steve Howes was replaced by Neil Gane, a former British Hong Kong Police Inspector who had been working in Malaysia with the MPAA against piracy.”

Boosting Statistics

“At this time, Short Round and I were trotted out to meet Neil and to show him our equipment and discuss tactics. Mr Gane gave the impression of being very committed to stopping the evil scourge of piracy and was far more media savvy than his predecessor.”

“He was adamant that we needed to boost our statistics to make the media sit up and take notice and that the large numbers would make it easier to get the local Police interested. This was especially difficult to do as local police had no jurisdiction over copyright infringing product and the AFP were desperately short on manpower. We were encouraged to find links to drugs and stolen goods wherever possible.”

“We discussed the formula for extrapolating the potential street value earnings of ‘laboratories’ and we were instructed to count all blank discs in our seizure figures as they were potential product. Mr Gane also explained that the increased loss approximation figures were derived from all forms of impacts on decreasing cinema patronage right through to the farmer who grows the corn for popping.”

Gane understood that the media was an essential tool towards AFACT’s goal of getting tougher copyright legislation in place. And for this purpose, it was a good idea to bend the truth a bit. The results of this recalculation are quite amazing.

“2002 impact estimates were $100 million to today’s figure of $1.36 billion in nine years…. That’s a lot of extrapolating,” Warren says.

Courting the Police

Aside from influencing lawmakers with creative statistics, Warren and his colleagues also had to court the police on a regular basis. AFACT worked with both local law enforcement and the attorney general’s office where they delivered evidence and information to, based on their own investigations.

“Funded solely by MPAA, AFACT lobbies hard for changes to Australian law and enhance the sexiness of their case by making vague references to links to terrorism. Sometimes not so vague. I was instructed to tell police officers that the profit margins were greater than dealing heroin. It was bizarre. A twisted logic that AFACT spewed out with monotonous regularity,” Warren says.

One of the examples Warren gives is that they assumed that all burners and DVD replicators would run 24/7, making these operations appear very lucrative.

“Each burner cranking out ten discs an hour, multiplied by ten dollars per disc is potentially a hundred dollars an hour, multiplied by number of burners by hours in a year gives a yearly potential…. Very pumped up statistics.”

When the local police were convinced about the to need to follow-up on the case, Warren delivered them all the evidence they would need on a silver platter.

“In my time at AFACT we developed relationships with various police officers (detectives) and would work our cases up to a stage where we could present them with enough information, intelligence and evidence that most of the work was done. This is called a ‘walk up start’.”

“Police on the other hand would sometimes find large quantities of copyright infringing material whilst executing warrants, eg: drug warrant executions would invariably turn up some dodgy DVDs and I would get a call to come and identify the product and prepare a brief of evidence for prosecution.”

“It was a matter of educating the police officers what to look for. In this vein, I would regularly deliver half day seminars to police on their training days. It was a good system and had the effect of increasing their prosecutions and my investigations statistics. Collaboration had such a dark overtone. Cooperation is my preferred term,” Warren says.

Like many other private investigators Warren is a former police detective. And although the statistics may have been pumped a little, Warren was always careful to act within the boundaries of the law when it comes to his investigative work.

“The PI license is relatively difficult to obtain and easy to lose, therefore we tend to shy away from any activity that would jeopardize our livelihood. The key to efficient and effective investigations is to know all aspects of the various legislations that cover things such as Surveillance Devices, hidden cameras etc. At no time did I authorize or condone the breaking of any laws or rules.”

“Undercover operations, to be used in evidence, need to be squeaky clean. The last thing any investigator needs is to have evidence thrown out of court because of the breach of legislation, or compromise by way of entrapment,” Warren told TorrentFreak.

Bye Bye PI

At the end of 2007 Warren had a meeting with Neil Gane, who just returned to AFACT after serving as the Australasian Operations Manager for the MPAA for a brief while. Gane told Warren that AFACT would be focusing more on ISPs and online piracy instead of the street work Warren did.

Warren was still welcome to submit a tender for piecemeal work at an hourly rate, instead of daily. However, he later learned that his partner and former friend, Short Round, had undercut him, and was working on an as-needed basis for AFACT.

This ended Warren’s ‘career’ in the anti-piracy business. In the years that followed he continued to monitor what AFACT was up to, and he still can’t help but crack a smile when he reads about the disastrous piracy statistics AFACT tells the media about. And so do we.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The results claimed to support the effectiveness of a 3-strikes system for copyright infringers, but those who took a closer look saw that this was not the case.

As we pointed out, the results could also show that none of the current file-sharers would be deterred, as the question was also answered by the 78 percent of people who don’t even use file-sharing software.

The press release was nothing more that a cheap and misleading marketing stunt and it’s tricks like this that are causing the anti-piracy lobby to lose credibility at a rapid pace.

Just a few hours ago AFACT came out with another press release. This time they plug the results of a study they appear to be unrelated to, conducted by the University of Ballarat’s Internet Commerce Security Laboratory (ICSL). These are the same researchers who released some rather incompetent reports in the past, but their latest study shows signs of improvement.

As AFACT is happy to point out, the researchers conclude that 97.2 percent of the most popular files on BitTorrent are infringing (and that a lot are faked). Although this conclusion is probably not too far off, not all journalists are eager to pick it up as some are starting to see that AFACT has a habit of twisting the truth.

In a piece titled “Fooling some of the media, some of the time,” Canberra Times journalist Myles Peterson explains his concerns.

When Peterson received the three-strikes study press release last week he couldn’t help but notice that News Corp newspapers received the details before ‘regular’ journalists did. Yes indeed, that is the same News Corp organization that is a partner of anti-piracy groups such as IPAF, DEAA and AFACT.

“Last Monday, The Australian ran a full-court press in print and online dubbed ‘Piracy, the disease that’s crippling our creative industries’, comprising a number of articles from various angles, all attacking the scourge of online file sharing. Articles also appeared in News Corp tabloids The Adelaide Advertiser and The Daily Telegraph,” Peterson writes.

“That’s odd, I thought. The avalanche of coverage seemed to disproportionately reference the new study. Would a media outlet co-operate with a lobby group to generate mass coverage of a topic, I wondered.”

While following up on the study, Petersen noticed that various Australian anti-piracy outfits are conveniently sharing personnel. This, added with the recent Wikileaks revelation that the MPAA is the driving force behind these groups, lead to further doubts. They were only heightened when the obvious flaws in the ‘independent’ study were pointed out by us.

Using journalists in a propaganda war orchestrated by foreign companies wasn’t a very pleasant thought to Petersen.

“The story behind the stories, both those that appeared in News Corp media and TorrentFreak’s balancing rebuttal, stayed with me, as did a series of worrying questions. Are AFACT, the DEAA and IPAF being co-ordinated by the same group of people? Are these people being directed by the Motion Picture Association of America, as the WikiLeaks cable suggested? ” he writes.

“What stuck with me most was a similar concern to one uttered recently by Australian Greens leader Senator Bob Brown. Did a group of journalists put together a press campaign based on a biased study supplied by a lobby group that represents their own employer?”

And if that’s not bad enough, in a few days the anti-piracy outfits have a meeting at the Federal General Attorney’s office to push their agenda at the highest level. The fear is that this talk will be far from balanced, and we can only hope that the hosts will be able to see through it.

“When our federal lawyers host these lobby groups at the end of the week, I hope they cast a more critical eye over any research presented than certain media outlets did. I also hope they are able to work out which person in the room represents the ACIG, AFACT, DEAA, IPAF, MPA, MPAA or all of the above,” Petersen concludes.

The good news is that the piece in the Canberra Times shows that not all journalists are indirectly working for the MPAA. Increasingly, we see skepticism towards the continuous stream of anti-piracy propaganda and more room for a sensible discussion about the topics at stake. Perhaps the tide is turning?

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The Australian has confirmed that Attorney-General Robert McClelland will be holding a meeting with copyright advocacy groups next month and has invited some ISPs to take part. The meeting will reportedly be to negotiate more copyright ‘protection’ laws.

A letter, obtained by The Australian, has stated that the meeting will allow stakeholder (read: Copyright Industry) views to be pitched to the government, as ‘advice’. While ISP’s have been invited, no invitations have apparently been sent to groups looking out for the public interest.

Telstra has already confirmed it’s attending, as will AFACT. Time will tell if the meeting, scheduled for September, will end up with the same whitewash as has characterised the introduction of such laws in other countries.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Nevertheless, this is the position Australia’s ISPs find themselves in today. They have a written ultimatum from the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, the anti-piracy group financed by the big Hollywood studios. Received last week, the memo gives the ISPs until close of business today to give their commitment to entering into talks to hinder online file-sharing – or suffer the consequences.

This aggressive approach has already “rubbed up” Exetel boss John Linton “the wrong way”, as Aussies might put it. He has declared that he won’t be responding to AFACT’s threats. Now, according to a new report and contrary to the result hoped for by AFACT, another ISP is trying to form a coalition with its rivals to fend off Hollywood’s demands.

A Telstra spokeswoman quoted by The Australian has confirmed that the ISP is liaising with the Communications Alliance to develop an industry-wide response to AFACT.

“Telstra remains open to discussing how we might assist copyright holders to enforce their private property rights. Given this is an industrywide issue Telstra has encouraged discussions to be facilitated by the Communications Alliance,” she said.

The Communications Alliance was set up to provide a unified voice for the Australian telecommunications industry, offer contributions to policy development and ensure the protection of consumer interests. A spokesperson confirmed that the organization is working with the ISPs to find “an industry-led solution” to online copyright issues.

Rather than adopt ISP suggestions that are unlikely to go far enough for Hollywood, AFACT appears to prefer a fairly aggressive approach to infringement touted by Judge Arthur Emmett during the iiNet trial.

Throwing their 3-cornered hats into the mix, Pirate Party Australia have rejected not only Emmett’s suggestions, but also the manner in which AFACT have approached the ISPs.

“Pirate Party Australia is opposed to the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft’s (AFACT) latest offensive against Australian internet users,” the party said in a statement.

“AFACT’s alleged extreme demands would require ISPs to notify their customers of infringements as alleged by AFACT and disconnect them if they do not respond within 7 days.

“These veiled threats are nothing more than intimidation tactics that once again clearly display the extent that Big Media will go to in their failing attempts to protect their flawed business models. Extortion is a new low even for AFACT,” says Acting Secretary, Brendan Molloy.

“It is completely inappropriate to have closed-room discussions even before the iiNet court case has concluded, and even more inappropriate to make veiled threats to begin yet another court case for not attending these ‘voluntary talks’.”

The party concludes by urging ISPs to unite against AFACT and refuse to become their copyright enforcement officers.

Involving the Communications Alliance in AFACT discussions would seem to be a sensible move by the ISPs. In the light of this development it remains to be seen whether AFACT still feels inclined to go ahead with whatever action lies behind today’s deadline.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Although AFACT is still engaged in legal proceedings against ISP iiNet, having lost the latest round of action in a case now destined for the appeal court, the carefully weighed rhetoric coming from the Hollywood-backed group speaks volumes.

“AFACT has always been open to discussions and negotiations with ISPs,” said an AFACT spokesperson last week on the back of news that it has been ‘inviting’ ISPs to join them in ‘negotiations’ about dealing with online piracy.

“This is simply an invitation to ISPs to engage with us to fulfil their obligations.”

Last week Delimiter reported that the letter sent by AFACT to ISPs highlights points from the most recent hearing in the iiNet case that the movie group feels went in their favor.

It now seems clear that despite losing that round AFACT is moving now – before the appeal – to pressure the ISPs into coming on board. So what do they want? According to The Australian, who have seen a copy of a letter sent to ISP Exetel, they want “a system of graduated responses to online piracy.”

But rather than an approaching talks on a mutually beneficial and friendly footing, AFACT has chosen to do so on the back of threats that are so thinly-veiled the ISPs can be in little doubt about what might be coming next.

The ISPs have until this Wednesday to accept AFACT’s invitation to voluntarily join talks or they will face “unspecified action”.

Exetel boss John Linton said that the wording in the letter could not be seen “as anything other than a threat.”

According to a source quoted by The Australian, AFACT will be relying heavily on statements made during the iiNet case by appeal court judge Arthur Emmett in order to generate leverage against the ISPs.

In a nutshell, Emmett suggested that customers should be warned that an infringement has taken place via their account and they should be given a certain time, say 7 days, to respond to the allegation. If no response should arrive then the ISP could suspend the account until one does. During the iiNet case itself, Judge Emmett suggested going even further for repeat infringers.

“Maybe the stage is reached where it’s reasonable to say, ‘Look, you’ve had warning after warning. Maybe you’re doing other lawful things, but if you insist on doing this unlawful activity, we’re going to close you down’.” No surprise then that Hollywood like Emmett’s style.

In their ongoing attempts to meet AFACT somewhere in the middle, during March this year iiNet came up with proposals for dealing with the issue of infringement, outlined in the diagram below.

“iiNet has developed a model which addresses ISP concerns but one we think remains attractive to all participants, including the sustainable strategy of an impartial referee for the resolution of disputes and the issue of penalties for offenders,” explained iiNet chief Michael Malone at the time. He doesn’t seem to be moving from this stance today.

“The rights holders need to provide cogent and unequivocal evidence, which means a transparent and robust collection process, tested by an independent body, such as the judiciary,” said Malone.

So the question remains – will the ISPs respond to the veiled threats of AFACT and agree to meet, or will they call Hollywood’s bluff and wait for the outcome of the iiNet appeal instead?

One thing is for certain, Exetel boss John Linton says he doesn’t respond to threats and won’t be complying. We should know later this week if others take the same stance.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

“Despite being successful on many grounds in their appeal to the Full Federal Court, the film companies will seek to overturn the ruling that iiNet did not authorise the acts of infringement that it knew occurred on its internet service,” the release reads.

For those on the other side of the debate, “successful on many grounds” actually grinds down to “lost the case for a second time” as in February the Full Bench of the Federal Court dismissed the movie industry’s appeal against last year’s judgment which found that ISP iiNet did not authorize the copyright infringements of its file-sharing customers.

Not that AFACT don’t have a point, though. If the movie industry had provided iiNet with better infringement notices in the first instance and the ISP had still not acted on them, the outcome of the case may have been different, the court decided.

“Prior to the case, iiNet was provided with substantial evidence of copyright infringement by users on its network, which iiNet accepted was 100% accurate,” said AFACT this morning. Although the words “100% accurate” don’t appear to have been used by iiNet verbatim, in court the ISP did use the word “compelling” to describe AFACT notices.

Nevertheless, two of three judges in the Federal Court found that iiNet had not authorized the infringing activities of their file-sharing subscribers and it is against this majority decision that AFACT are appealing.

“We say [the judges] did not apply the legal test for authorisation correctly,” AFACT chief Neil Gane said.

Furthermore, AFACT says that the Court’s conclusion – that iiNet did not have enough knowledge of infringements taking place in order to be found as authorizing them – was also wrong.

“We are confident of our grounds for appeal and hopeful that special leave to the High Court will be granted,” Gane concludes.

However, while AFACT are like a dog with a bone in pursuing this legal action, iiNet continues to call for the movie industry to spend their money on something more creative.

“It’s time for the film industry and copyright holders to work with the industry to make their content legitimately available,” iiNet’s Chief Executive Officer Michael Malone said today in response to AFACT’s announcement.

Malone said iiNet had received positive feedback “from both consumers and the industry” following the publication of its ‘Encouraging Legitimate use of Online Content‘ report earlier this month and that all parties should consider moving forward on that basis.

If the case does indeed move to the High Court, no decision is expected until late 2011 or early 2012.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.