AFACT v iiNet: Government called to action

Federal Government urged to make changes to copyright law by both iiNet and AFACT

Service providers, rights holders and internet users are anxiously awaiting news of whether the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) will further appeal the decision against it this week in the Federal Court, but both the industry body and defendant iiNet are clear on a single message: The Federal Government must step in.

Two of the three presiding Federal Court judges dismissed AFACT’s appeal against iiNet, in which the film studios representative alleged the ISP had authorised infringement of copyright by its users. It is widely expected that AFACT will appeal the decision, pushing proceedings to the High Court, but the body’s executive director, Neil Gane, said time would be taken before making a decision on the issue.

“It is too early to comment on the details of the decision or any next steps apart from saying that we will be taking our time now to examine the judgement in detail and consider all of our options,” he said.

However, in doorstop interviews held immediately after the court’s judgement, both Gane and iiNet chief executive, Michael Malone, called upon the Federal Government to intervene and clarify issues surrounding copyright infringement and the responsibilities of service providers once and for all.

“As it’s happening around the world in the UK and France, the only way you’re going to clarity is if the government steps in,” Malone said.

“I think the ISP industry has come together and has been having that common view all through this that we’re not encouraging customers to do this, and simply saying the ISPs are responsible is never going to get the required outcome.”

Gane pointed to AFACT’s submission (PDF) to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy’s convergence review into media and communications regulation, which recommended the Federal Government specifically include elements of intellectual property rights in its consideration.

Communications minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, recently stated that any changes to copyright legislation would only be considered pending the outcome of the appeal case but in a statement emailed to Computerworld Australia following the judgement, a spokesperson for the senator said the government would “carefully analyse” the policy implications of the case.

“As AFACT may seek leave to appeal to the High Court it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment on this matter,” the email read.

The Attorney-General’s department did not respond to requests for comment at time of writing.

Nick Hart, senior consultant at law firm Truman Hoyle Lawyers, said the decision would likely have implications on legislation.

“Today’s Federal Court decision will not take the content or technology industries by surprise,” he said. “Although the next step is likely to be an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, this decision will undoubtedly increase pressure on the Federal Government to pass laws to tackle illegal filesharing and piracy on the internet, as has occurred in New Zealand, France and the UK for example.”

Such changes would be required to precede any further actions from copyright owners against service providers. As part of the Federal Court’s judgement, Justice Emmett declared that despite the appeal’s dismissal, the provisions used to defend iiNet in proceedings may fail to stand to reason in future cases involving either the company or other service providers under similar matters.

Malone also warned that, despite the decision, rights holders could potentially litigate directly against those found or alleged to have illegally downloaded or distributed copyrighted material, as has occurred in the United States and other countries.

Dr Matthew Rimmer, associate director of research at the Australian National University’s College of Law, told Computerworld Australia that a High Court decision would be able to better deal with the case, particularly as the preceding cases had already outlined the technologies involved and surrounding issues of authorisation.

However, he agreed that current legislation provided little clarification on the issue of liability of intermediaries like iiNet and other carriage service providers.

“There’s a fundamental issue about whether or not the Australian approach to authorisation is a good one,” he said. “I think the safe harbours regime needs to be modernised, especially in this era of automated notices.

“Essentially the question of intermediary liability is never going to be resolved by a single case or legislative reform. There’s going to be ongoing war between the combatting parties on multiple platforms.”

He attributed the lack of conversation on the issue from the current Labor Government as evidence of possible division between ministers and an unwillingness to commit to legislative reform without a final court decision.

In the meantime, however, he warned international pushes by copyright owners for a ‘three strikes’ rule in other jurisdictions might continue to be pushed here, despite the clause being wiped from the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

“I imagine there’ll be a lot of that after this litigation,” he said.

Follow James Hutchinson on Twitter: @j_hutch

Follow Computerworld Australia on Twitter: @ComputerworldAU

Join the newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.
Rocket to Success - Your 10 Tips for Smarter ERP System Selection

Tags Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT)AFACTAFACT v iiNetiiNetcopyright infringement

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

James Hutchinson

Computerworld
Show Comments

Most Popular Reviews

Latest Articles

Resources

PCW Evaluation Team

Ben Ramsden

Sharp PN-40TC1 Huddle Board

Brainstorming, innovation, problem solving, and negotiation have all become much more productive and valuable if people can easily collaborate in real time with minimal friction.

Sarah Ieroianni

Brother QL-820NWB Professional Label Printer

The print quality also does not disappoint, it’s clear, bold, doesn’t smudge and the text is perfectly sized.

Ratchada Dunn

Sharp PN-40TC1 Huddle Board

The Huddle Board’s built in program; Sharp Touch Viewing software allows us to easily manipulate and edit our documents (jpegs and PDFs) all at the same time on the dashboard.

George Khoury

Sharp PN-40TC1 Huddle Board

The biggest perks for me would be that it comes with easy to use and comprehensive programs that make the collaboration process a whole lot more intuitive and organic

David Coyle

Brother PocketJet PJ-773 A4 Portable Thermal Printer

I rate the printer as a 5 out of 5 stars as it has been able to fit seamlessly into my busy and mobile lifestyle.

Kurt Hegetschweiler

Brother PocketJet PJ-773 A4 Portable Thermal Printer

It’s perfect for mobile workers. Just take it out — it’s small enough to sit anywhere — turn it on, load a sheet of paper, and start printing.

Featured Content

Product Launch Showcase

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?