iiNet wins ‘piracy’ case
Thursday February 04th 2010, 2:04 pm

yaaaarrrrrrrrh me heartiesWell, duh.

The police can’t fine Toyota when I double park, either.

AFACT was clutching at straws- and Justice Cowdroy made sure they know it by forcing them to pay iiNet’s costs.

Senator Conjob judged the outcome of the case just about as well as he’s judged mandatory internet censorship.

Conroy at the ATUG Awards, where, astonishingly, he was awarded the ‘Communicator of the Year‘ medal:

“I saw iiNet’s defence in court under oath … they have no idea if their customers are downloading illegally music or movies,” he said today at the Commsday summit in Sydney. “Stunning defence, stunning defence,” he continued in what appeared to be a sarcastic comment.

“I thought a defence in terms of ‘we had no idea’ … belongs in a Yes Minister episode.”

Shadow Communications Minister Nick Minchin, speaking afterwards, said he believed Conroy’s jibe was outrageous and only served to get back at iiNet for its exit from the government’s ISP filtering trial. “I have to say his handling of his promise [the National Broadband Network] is much more typical of what you would see on Yes Minister,” Minchin said.


“The capacity to ignore what the customers are doing and claim no responsibility is being tested in court right now,” [Conroy] said. “It could be a ground-breaking case.”

Ground-breaking indeed. Just not the ground Reichsminister Conroy wanted broken.

ISPs shouldn’t be forced to police copyright infringements, any more than they should be forced to police the content Australians view on the ‘net.


4 Comments so far
Leave a comment

That’s good! And what would be expected from a rational judgement, but unfortunately it seems that copyright law is rarely rational. Obviously iiNet can’t be held responsible for what its users do with internet access — it would take vast (and grossly excessive) resources to monitor people’s internet use to catch them out doing illegal things, and it would be incredibly disrespectful of users’ privacy (as the company argues).

Conroy’s response is not exactly unexpected, either. It would seem to demonstrate pretty clearly that he has no idea how the internet works, though.

Comment by Jess 02.04.10 @ 5:40 pm

Too right, Jess.

Having Conroy in charge of internet matters is like having me in charge of good taste in fashion- and just so you know, I have 7 pairs of Levis and 7 t-shirts… and they’re all black.

Comment by weez 02.05.10 @ 8:06 am

The whole issue here, the big sticky wicket, is lack of evidence…

Comment by bulletproofcourier 02.05.10 @ 7:11 pm

Lack of evidence for censorship or sharing copyrighted material?

Comment by weez 02.05.10 @ 7:48 pm

Leave a comment



Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function show_subscription_checkbox() in /home/www/ Stack trace: #0 /home/www/ require() #1 /home/www/ comments_template() #2 /home/www/ include('/home/www/machi...') #3 /home/www/ require_once('/home/www/machi...') #4 /home/www/ require('/home/www/machi...') #5 {main} thrown in /home/www/ on line 155