AFACT has continued its verbal battery on iiNet CEO Michael Malone who sat in the witness box this morning, alleging iiNet has merely feigned protection of copyright holders. According to AFACT barrister Tony Bannon, iiNet has been hiding behind its stance of forwarding AFACT infrigement notices to law enforcement agencies instead of disconnecting offending users.
Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
Bannon alleged iiNet's policy of forwarding AFACT
notices to police to be a "cynical attempt for [iiNet] to provide a
pretence that [they have] attempted to protect against copyright
infringement," and as a means "to give iiNet the appearance of being
helpful when really [the forwarding was] completely and utterly
useless."
Malone's stance has remained firm against this notion, retorting with iiNet's inability to act on AFACT allegations or evidence without a court or authorised body's order/warrant.
"AFACT was telling us to disconnect customers without further ado," said Malone.
"The question is, what should we do when confronted with illegal activity? And our response is, report it to the proper authorities."
iiNet's consistent policy has been to forward AFACT copyright infringement notices to the Computer Crimes Unit of the Western Australian police. (Correction: This was an assertion from Mr Malone on the stand as he was cross examined. In fact, evidence emerged yesterday that iiNet only sent the notifications to police twice - AFACT maintains that this is hardly a consistent policy.)
In an email from Malone presented to the court, Malone described AFACT's notices of copyright infringement as requests for "vigilante" action. He continued in the email to say, "iiNet will not take the position of judge and jury."
Bannon turned Malone's words back on him, questioning why action was not taken by iiNet against users who violated the iiNet User Agreement when there was "compelling evidence" (as Malone labelled it yesterday) for such violations.
"This is a right," said Malone, "not an obligation of iiNet."
The debate hit a morally sensitive nerve when Bannon asked, "so if you had 'compelling evidence' that an iiNet user was violating the User Agreement by accessing child pornography, you would allow them to connect day after day?"
Reiterating iiNet's stance, Malone said that iiNet is not permitted to take action on the grounds of AFACT claims without a court order.
Bannon deduced this to mean that iiNet's position is, "and you're happy to tell your customers this from the witness box," that iiNet will not disconnect their subscribers for infringing copyright.
Malone agreed, though on the notion that they would only disconnect the offending user upon court orders handed down from a court ruling that would involve iiNet, the infringer and the copyright holder.
Article Link at http://www.itwire.com/content/view/29009/53/
Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
Malone's stance has remained firm against this notion, retorting with iiNet's inability to act on AFACT allegations or evidence without a court or authorised body's order/warrant.
"AFACT was telling us to disconnect customers without further ado," said Malone.
"The question is, what should we do when confronted with illegal activity? And our response is, report it to the proper authorities."
iiNet's consistent policy has been to forward AFACT copyright infringement notices to the Computer Crimes Unit of the Western Australian police. (Correction: This was an assertion from Mr Malone on the stand as he was cross examined. In fact, evidence emerged yesterday that iiNet only sent the notifications to police twice - AFACT maintains that this is hardly a consistent policy.)
In an email from Malone presented to the court, Malone described AFACT's notices of copyright infringement as requests for "vigilante" action. He continued in the email to say, "iiNet will not take the position of judge and jury."
Bannon turned Malone's words back on him, questioning why action was not taken by iiNet against users who violated the iiNet User Agreement when there was "compelling evidence" (as Malone labelled it yesterday) for such violations.
"This is a right," said Malone, "not an obligation of iiNet."
The debate hit a morally sensitive nerve when Bannon asked, "so if you had 'compelling evidence' that an iiNet user was violating the User Agreement by accessing child pornography, you would allow them to connect day after day?"
Reiterating iiNet's stance, Malone said that iiNet is not permitted to take action on the grounds of AFACT claims without a court order.
Bannon deduced this to mean that iiNet's position is, "and you're happy to tell your customers this from the witness box," that iiNet will not disconnect their subscribers for infringing copyright.
Malone agreed, though on the notion that they would only disconnect the offending user upon court orders handed down from a court ruling that would involve iiNet, the infringer and the copyright holder.
Article Link at http://www.itwire.com/content/view/29009/53/
