Both AFACT and presiding judge, Justice Emmett, have looked to an industry code of conduct to counter copyright infringement, but stalled discussions may not restartThe appeal case between Internet service provider, iiNet and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has come to a close after four days, with the panel of judges expected to reveal its decision sometime after 20 August, pending further documents from legal counsel.No matter who wins, litigation is looking likely to escalate to the High Court.However, it is also becoming clear that a commercial code of conduct may be the only way to resolve the issue of addressing copyright infringement among users.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356032/afact_v_iinet_copyright_holders_continue_push_industry_code/AFACT v iiNet: Innocent account holders held responsible
Account holders should be held responsible for alleged copyright infringement on their accounts, even if they weren’t the one to actually download the materialLegal counsel for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has argued that the account holder should be held accountable for alleged copyright infringement, even if they weren’t the one to actually download infringing material.Replying to iiNet’s defence on the fourth day of the case appeal, AFACT legal counsel, Christian Dimitriadis, told Justices Emmett, Nicholas and Jagot that the account holder consented to any and all users of their account for Internet use, and therefore should be held to account for any acts relating to that account.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/355911/updated_-_afact_v_iinet_innocent_account_holders_held_responsible/AFACT v iiNet: ‘Reasonable belief’ defence may be incorrect
The ISP’s chief executive did not receive legal advice on Telecommunications Act provisions for failing to act on AFACT evidence, court hearsIt has been revealed that iiNet’s defence of ‘reasonable belief’ against acting on evidence of copyright infringement was potentially based on a misinterpretation of relevant legislation.A barrister for iiNet’s legal team, Richard Lancaster, iterated sections of the Telecommunications Act and Copyright Act in which the service provider would have been prevented from acting on evidence of copyright infringement of its users supplied by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) during 2007 and 2008. Lancaster argued that iiNet believed “in good faith” that acting on such evidence would be unlawful.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/355895/afact_v_iinet_reasonable_belief_defence_may_incorrect/