You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
In a case that may have impacted Aussies internet users and companies like the immediate threat of the great URL filter, the case was contested in court with ISP iiNet taking on Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), who represented most of the heavyweights in the music and move industries over copyrighted material. The premise of the case was simple; they attempted to persuade the court that iiNet was legally liable for alleged copyright infringement activity by its customers. In a far fetched attempt, they tried to blame the service provider for allowing piracy to occur, just by providing the internet connection service. iiNet has won the court case, but if AFACT won, the laws could have changed with active filtering for copyrighted work being used and forced disconnections for end users. AFACT have to pay costs and it is good to see that providing a product or service does not legally hold you responsible for end users activities.
Are you happy with this outcome? What other ways can piracy be stopped?
Threaded Mode