Going for the wrong jugular - what was wrong with the AFACT case

David Heath
Friday, 25 February 2011 09:34

Opinion and Analysis

Both iiNet CEO Michael Malone and AFACT Executive Director Neil Gane summed the trial and appeal perfectly in two short quotes.  Both demonstrate that AFACT was chasing the wrong target.

As reported earlier by iTWire, iiNet was able to successfully fend off the AFACT appeal against the earlier ruling in the argument over whether iiNet should actively police the copyright violations of its customers.

Admittedly only by a 2:1 majority decision.  However this layman's reading of the dissenting judge's comments don't seem to make an awful lot of sense.  But then, IANAL!

Neil Gane, executive director of AFACT, was quoted in our earlier article as saying, the majority decision of the Federal Court suggested that; "ISPs don't have to lift a finger," to prevent copyright theft taking place via their networks.

Mr. Gane, respectfully, that is exactly the point.  They don't.

Allow me to posit an equivalent situation.

I have a copy of the latest Dan Brown thriller (to take an author at random) which I read down the telephone to an 'accomplice' who types up an exact copy of the book on his computer.  This copy is then printed numerous times and distributed widely without any payment to the copyright owner.

Clearly this is a case of copyright infringement and is (as far as I can tell) identical in substance to the movie violations which were at the core of the legal action.

AFACT would argue that my telephone service should be cancelled.