Tweet
iiNet's closing arguments continue into week 5 of the trial.
iiNet revealed that the reason they forwarded the AFACT infringement notices to police was because they believed that the AFACT's own investigation may have been unlawful, citing actions by investigators which may have been seen as illegal. Earlier in the trial, movie studio bosses testified that they would not sanction any unlawful acts in relation to investigating copyright infringement.
iiNet also stated their position that they do not want to act like copyright cops for the film industry, likening their actions in pursuing ISP actions to "outsourcing", and yet unwilling to offer financial support. ‘you fix it up for us, but we’re not going to pay a cent’, was described as the movie studios' attitudes when it came to getting ISPs to do their bidding.
iiNet again stressed that in order to "vet" the AFACT claims of infringement, they believe they would have to breach the Telecommunications Act in order to perform this action. iiNet argued that even to check the AFACT claims that copyrighted materials had been downloaded, the ISP would have to use a BitTorrent client to download portions of the illegal file, and hence, infringe copyright themselves in the process. iiNet thus called the action of giving ISPs infringement notices as "unreasonable".
More:
iiNet revealed that the reason they forwarded the AFACT infringement notices to police was because they believed that the AFACT's own investigation may have been unlawful, citing actions by investigators which may have been seen as illegal. Earlier in the trial, movie studio bosses testified that they would not sanction any unlawful acts in relation to investigating copyright infringement.
iiNet also stated their position that they do not want to act like copyright cops for the film industry, likening their actions in pursuing ISP actions to "outsourcing", and yet unwilling to offer financial support. ‘you fix it up for us, but we’re not going to pay a cent’, was described as the movie studios' attitudes when it came to getting ISPs to do their bidding.
iiNet again stressed that in order to "vet" the AFACT claims of infringement, they believe they would have to breach the Telecommunications Act in order to perform this action. iiNet argued that even to check the AFACT claims that copyrighted materials had been downloaded, the ISP would have to use a BitTorrent client to download portions of the illegal file, and hence, infringe copyright themselves in the process. iiNet thus called the action of giving ISPs infringement notices as "unreasonable".
More:
