[Chapter-delegates] Australian court rules in favour of Internet service provider

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Hi,

congratulations to Narelle and all in ISOC-AU, and thanks for the good 
news and excellent comment.

Also thanks to Joly for prompt posting and twittering and the commens 
here.

My more substantial point is to look into this news in the context of the 
festering discontent about ACTA. From what is believed about that Treaty, 
the Australian resolution here runs counter to one of its main principles.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty


.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732

* Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
* LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
* Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
* Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

* Ven a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org.mx, ISOC http://www.isoc.org
*Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .


On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Joly MacFie wrote:

> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:50:37 -0500
> From: Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com>
> To: Narelle <narellec at gmail.com>
> Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Australian court rules in favour of	Intern
>     service provider
> 
> Hi Narelle
>
> This ruling is naturally causing a buzz and I already posted it on the
> ISOC-NY noticeboard
> http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=331
>
> I've added your comments and links, for which I am grateful.
>
> The main impetus for the case seemed to be that AFACT got angry
> because iiNet refused to serve the "alleged" infringement notices on
> their users, but instead would forward them to the cops.
>
> In court AFACT did win one point where iiNet had to admit that the of
> the infringements were proven rather than alleged, nevertheless iiNet
> had it in their terms of use that repeated infringement could get
> users busted, which was sufficient to maintain safe harbor status.
>
> The key word, and this may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
> was "authorise" - iiNet in no way authorised illegal activity. In many
> places merely "contributing" is sufficient to fall foul of statutes,
> am I wrong?
>
> joly
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Narelle <narellec at gmail.com> wrote:
>> All
>> In Nov 2008 a group film industry players lodged a claim against an
>> Australian ISP arguing it had infringed copyright by not cutting off
>> users downloading copyright material.
>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>