AFACT: Time to change business model?

James Riley
Wednesday, 04 August 2010 21:17

IT Policy - Regulation

The long-running copyright case between ISP iiNet and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) looks to have come full circle, with one Federal Court judge musing out loud that there is a commercial solution to the issue, regardless of what is decided by the bench.

At the end of day three of AFACT appeal against an adverse finding in February, iiNet representatives were wondering whether the heart of the issue had been found - and whether it was time for the movie industry to change its business model.

In an exchange with iiNet counsel, Justice Arthur Emmett said it seemed that problems of alleged copyright infringement might be a continuing issue regardless of what is decided in the case.

"It just seems to me that out there is a commercial solution and there's nothing we can do that will ultimately resolve this problem," Justice Emmett said.

And that comment had iiNet spruiking its long-running theme: That the movie industry needs to re-think its business model as the best way to protect its copyright and get returns on its content investments.

"(Justice Emmett) is effectively saying that regardless of what the court decides, it is not going to stop the problem, which is exactly what we have been saying for two years," an iiNet spokesman told iTWire.

"If you go back to Michael Malone's quotes from straight after we won the initial court hearing, we said it is up now to the content industry to sit down and look at their business model."

"If we had done everything that AFACT had asked us to do and cut people off because they had alleged breached copyright, that doesn't stop people from engaging in piracy."

"(Those people) would just go off and get another account with Telstra or Optus or whoever. So the problem is not of our making or our solution."

He said iiNet had consistently argued that the best way to combat piracy had to include making 'content available online in a timely fashion at a reasonable price.'

Asking the Attorney-General to go back and have another look at the legislation was not a solution - if only because it would be an unusual government that would want to reform laws that had not yet been tested.