Matthew Lentini
Wednesday, 04 November 2009 10:48
Your IT -
Home IT
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has accused iiNet of not abiding by its own contractual agreements with users by failing to disconnect accused copyright infringers who allegedly violate the terms and conditions of their contracts.
iiNet has publicly demonstrated a stance of
condemning copyright infringement by forbidding it in its User Agreement
and Terms and Conditions with iiNet subscribers. However, the ISP
maintains that it cannot legally disconnect users alleged to have
infringed copyright without a court order or via legislation or industry
codes that are yet to be created.
The debate ultimately comes down to various interpretations of the
Telecommunications Act by both AFACT and iiNet.
AFACT believes that iiNet has subscriber consent to disclose customer
details due to its User Agreements, though iiNet's interpretation of the
Act states otherwise.
AFACT has proposed an amendment to the iiNet User Agreement that would
allow, in the eyes of iiNet, for customer consent in providing customer
details in the case of copyright infringement, alleging that the
contract was "limited" in its current form to iiNet.
Regardless of its user agreement, iiNet maintains that it still requires
legitimate proof as accepted by courts to process any accusation of
copyright infringement.
However, AFACT barrister Tony Bannon questioned the credibility of
iiNet's dedication to preventing copyright infringement.
"If you truly believed that there was a 'deficiency' [later withdrawn
and replaced with 'limitation'] in the contract and were concerned about
user copyright infringement ... you would amend the contract," alleged
Bannon.
iiNet CEO Michael Malone, however, reiterated iiNet's position, stating
that the ISP would still require a third party review of AFACT
allegations of copyright infringement alongside court orders or
legislation requiring their action against customers.