IIA hits up AFACT for court costs

IIA hits up AFACT for court costs

Summary: The Internet Industry Association (IIA) is also attempting to recoup the legal costs accrued through its own involvement in the Federal Court copyright dispute between the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and iiNet.


The Internet Industry Association (IIA) is also attempting to recoup the legal costs accrued through its own involvement in the Federal Court copyright dispute between the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and iiNet.

The IIA is believed to be preparing to lodge a motion with the Federal Court, asking it to order AFACT to pay the costs the IIA had racked up by participating in the landmark copyright case.

Justice Dennis Cowdroy earlier this month ruled in iiNet's favour in a case which saw it accused of authorising its customers to breach copyright by downloading and uploading pirated films and television shows. Cowdroy ruled that iiNet had not authorised its customers' breach of copyright simply because it did not forward notifications of alleged infringements to offending customers.

The IIA's involvement in the hearing was two-fold: while it was subpoenaed by AFACT, it had also asked to intervene as an amicus curiae or a "friend of the court".

A well-placed source has told ZDNet.com.au that the IIA had directly called on AFACT to pay for its costs; however, it is understood that AFACT has since rejected the IIA's claim, meaning that the IIA will now need to battle the issue out in court if it wants to have its expenses paid.

Both AFACT and the IIA have declined to comment on the matter.

AFACT will commence its own court room battle this Thursday as it attempts to lower the $5.7 million in legal costs it has to pay on behalf of iiNet after the judge ordered that AFACT pay the legal costs of the action.

Asked about AFACT's attempt to trim its legal costs, Malone told ZDNet.com.au yesterday, "[AFACT] came to us and sued us and they lost, so I don't see why we should be paying any of their legal expenses."

AFACT has not yet made clear whether AFACT will appeal Justice Cowdroy's decision. It has until this Thursday to do so.

Topics: Telcos, Government AU, Legal

Liam Tung

About Liam Tung

Liam Tung is an Australian business technology journalist living a few too many Swedish miles north of Stockholm for his liking. He gained a bachelors degree in economics and arts (cultural studies) at Sydney's Macquarie University, but hacked (without Norse or malicious code for that matter) his way into a career as an enterprise tech, security and telecommunications journalist with ZDNet Australia. These days Liam is a full time freelance technology journalist who writes for several publications.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • AFACT are just the worst bunch of trolls ever. Period

    AFACT are not making themselves known as fair players by doing this and nobody in this side of the industry is going to want to have anything to do with them in the future. They subpoena the IIA to help their iiNet case *at the IIA's expense* but when they lose they make no effort to compensate the IIA for the time and money spent helping them. I think AFACT stink and I hope no one takes their side in the future regardless of the argument. What a bunch of female reproductive organs.
  • Sorry, the female pudenda is useful.

    I like your carefully chosen wording to get around the automated censor, but unlike reproductive "bits", AMYTH should be likened to the Appendix--a vestigial left-over that has been out-evolved by a telephone sanitizer.

    If AMYTH keep trying to legislate against future technology instead of embracing it, then they may as well start a lobby group to outlaw gravity.
  • AFACT = Sore Losers

    I agree wholeheartedly that AFACT are now the complete laughing stock of the Industry. They are also digging themselves into a very big hole, that they are inevitably going to have to try and climb out of.

    Much like America's RIAA, they are going to be going the way of the Dodo Bird. They are incapable of upholding what they stand for, and are not willing to reimburse companies/institutions for time and money spent on their causes. From a business sense this utter suicide, as nobody will be inclined to jump in and help them in the future
  • Afact led by the nose by US Film Industry

    I feel that the US film industry should be paying for all the costs, as it led Afact to commence this case with little chance of winning.

    All of this was commenced by the likes of Media Sentry, and other bodies using falsified , or contaminated information from the US film industry
  • AFACTS members scamming customers - rigging markets.

    AFACT's members involved in price fixing? Conspiring to rip off the consumers? Noooooooo


    A home electronics retail store has filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony Corp., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Toshiba Corp., LG Electronics Inc., Hitachi Ltd. and several subsidiaries, accusing the electronics manufacturers of colluding to fix prices in the U.S. optical disc drive (ODD) market.


    MDL Docket No. 1361 read:

    “The Plaintiffs have alleged in two separate amended complaints that the Defendants conspired to illegally fix and control the pricing of Music Products sold to consumers through Defendant Distributors’ adoption and utilization of Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) programs in violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and unfair competition and/or consumer protection laws. The Plaintiffs have further alleged that as a result of the conspiracy residents of the Plaintiff States and members of the Plaintiff Settlement Class have been injured by paying more for Music Products than they would have paid in the absence of the illegal conduct. The Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by the Plaintiffs and any violation of law. The Court has not made any determination as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses of the parties to this Litigation.”

    In the hot seat were:

    * LABELS: Capitol Records, Inc d/b/a EMI Music Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc, and Priority Records LLC; Time Warner, Inc, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp, WEA, Inc, Warner Music Group, Inc, Warner Bros Records, Inc, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc, and Rhino Entertainment Company; Universal Music & Video Distribution Corporation, Universal Music Group, Inc, and UMG Recordings, Inc; Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc and BMG Music; and, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
    * RETAILERS: MTS, Inc d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp, and Trans World Entertainment Corp.