Technology news and Jobs 
Telecommunications Why ISPs can’t afford to let iiNet lose the piracy lawsuit
Telecommunications Why ISPs can’t afford to let iiNet lose the piracy lawsuit | Why ISPs can’t afford to let iiNet lose the piracy lawsuit |
|
| by Alex Zaharov-Reutt | |
| Sunday, 23 November 2008 | |
|
Page 2 of 3 Clearly, given that AFACT is targeting all ISPs in Australia by targeting one, all ISPs must come together to support iiNet at this crucial time. Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
The Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) put out a press release that raises their concerns, with EFA spokesperson Nicolas Suzor saying that "ISPs are not in a position to monitor and terminate internet access to users based upon unsubstantiated threats from copyright owners, and should not be asked to do so." The EFA also points to the “safe harbour” provisions of the Australia - US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) which provide that ISPs will not be liable to copyright owners for merely routing internet traffic as long as they "adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the accounts of repeat infringers." Here Suzor says: “Copyright infringement is a complicated area of law with numerous exceptions. ISPs are simply not equipped and certainly should not be asked to play the role of judge, jury, and executioner upon allegations of infringement. “Every citizen has a right of due process under the law, and when faced with having their internet service terminated, every citizen has the right to ask that the case against them be proven first,” continued Suzor. The EFA has also pointed to some cases in the US that will be of particular interest to iiNet’s legal team, such as “documented cases in which copyright owners have even alleged that a simple laser printer has illicitly downloaded and shared copyright movies, for example. “There have also been allegations of infringement for uses which are clearly permissible under US fair-use law, such as the case of a short home movie in which a baby was filmed dancing to a song on the radio.” Continued on page 3... |
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
