Tweet
The court case between the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and Australian ISP iiNet is set to start next week, but the AFACT has just dropped another important part of their claims against iiNet.
Earlier in the year, it was reported here that the AFACT had dropped "conversion" charges against iiNet, a charge that made iiNet the main copyright infringer in the case, as opposed to the websites providing the illegal content or the users downloading them.
Now, the AFACT has dropped the claim that iiNet engaged in primary acts of copyright infringement, a charge that was made based on speculation that iiNet cached the content for faster access by its subscribers, and as such, it was directly providing and hosting copyright content.
The problem with this claim is that this is the basic fundamental principle behind how all ISPs work, and that all digital data, regardless of origin or legality, are cached in some degree and in many places along the path from the source to the destination. If iiNet is guilty of primary copyright infringement based on this, then pretty much every telecommunication company and infrastructure network is guilty as well, because cached copies of the same digital data can be found in many places.
The AFACT responded by saying that this was never the main part of the case, and that the "authorisation" charges have always been the main part of the case.
More:
Earlier in the year, it was reported here that the AFACT had dropped "conversion" charges against iiNet, a charge that made iiNet the main copyright infringer in the case, as opposed to the websites providing the illegal content or the users downloading them.
Now, the AFACT has dropped the claim that iiNet engaged in primary acts of copyright infringement, a charge that was made based on speculation that iiNet cached the content for faster access by its subscribers, and as such, it was directly providing and hosting copyright content.
The problem with this claim is that this is the basic fundamental principle behind how all ISPs work, and that all digital data, regardless of origin or legality, are cached in some degree and in many places along the path from the source to the destination. If iiNet is guilty of primary copyright infringement based on this, then pretty much every telecommunication company and infrastructure network is guilty as well, because cached copies of the same digital data can be found in many places.
The AFACT responded by saying that this was never the main part of the case, and that the "authorisation" charges have always been the main part of the case.
More:
