The case between iiNet and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft has continued in the Federal Court, with Judge Cowdroy questioning the relevance of some of the film industry’s evidence.
The dismissal came on the 12th day of the case, with iiNet managing director Michael Malone still taking the stand to be cross-examined by AFACT counsel Tony Bannon.
Bannon submitted blog posts from ISP Exetel chief executive John Linton, and the copyright policy of People Telecom, as examples of how iiNet should be combating alleged copyright infringements.
AFACT has been attempting to show that iiNet has an obligation to disconnect alleged copyright violators from internet networks.
But Cowdroy questioned the relevance of the blog posts, saying the reasons for their inclusion were, “not readily apparent”. Earlier yesterday, Cowdroy allowed the inclusion of a blog post discussing a meeting between Linton and a government department outlining a copyright policy.
“I’m not sure at this stage what relevance is. I’ll allow it for the time being to see what transpires,” Cowdroy stated.
During a recess, the two barristers agreed over the terms of the use of the evidence and it was subsequently allowed in court.
Malone later confirmed that iiNet has no written policy on how to deal with alleged copyright infringers on its network after Bannon submitted a number of copyright infringement policies from ISPs People Telecom, Netspace, iPrimus and Beagle Internet.
“We’ve been through a number of different published sites of ISPs and seen what their copyright infringement policies [were],” Bannon said. “Is there any reason why iiNet, if it has a copyright infringement policy, would want to keep it a secret from copyright owners, the general public, the press or customers?”
Malone replied the company had no written policy, and said it did not publish the policy on its website because “we haven’t been provided with a case of a repeat infringer”.
“Did you just hear what you just said Mr Malone? That the reason you haven’t published a policy is because you haven’t had a repeat infringer. Would you like to think about that for a moment?” Bannon asked.
“No sir,” Malone said, with Bannon accusing him of treating the proceedings as a “game”.
The case continues today.
Patrick Stafford is a freelance journalist and a former deputy editor of SmartCompany.
Comments