iiNet strikes deal with Village Roadshow in midst of court battle

iiNet’s legal counsel attacked the inclusion of entertainment company Village Roadshow in the ongoing case between the ISP and the film and television industry, saying the company has signed a deal to distribute content to iiNet customers.

General counsel Richard Cobden asked Village Roadshow’s counsel, Simon Phillipson, whether he agreed the presence of legally available copyrighted material helped to reduce the number of illegal downloads, with Phillipson responding “Yes, I would hope so”.

But the court heard Phillipson was not aware Roadshow has made a deal with iiNet to distribute some of its content on the company’s “Freezone” service, including several children’s television programs.

It has been alleged by AFACT that the ability to download material illegally has resulted in lost revenue, but Phillipson acknowledged to Cobden he knew box office sales were up 10% this year, with DVD sales increasing.

iiNet has attempted to argue it has made significant steps to ensure copyrighted material is available through legal channels, such as its “Freezone” service for customers.

But Phillipson said the company’s decision to join the Australian Federal Against Copyright Theft’s case was made when it considered what steps could be taken by iiNet to reduce piracy.

“Roadshow considered what an ISP could do, and the steps it could reasonably take without great cost or effort, and that was one of the factors in Roadshow considering this litigation,” he said.

“We considered the material provided (AFACT’s infringement notices) to iiNet was sufficient to identify customers, and that we considered it wasn’t a great cost or effort to contact those customers in some way in relation to their infringement of our copyright. That was a relatively cost-efficient exercise and more cost-efficient than

Roadshow litigating against those individual users,” he said.
Meanwhile, forensics investigator Nigel Carson took the stand yesterday in order to determine whether an IP address would be sufficient to identify an internet pirate.

AFACT used IP addresses in order to identity alleged copyright infringers and subsequently inform iiNet of thousands of suspected violations.

The “IP address is the starting point of investigation,” Carson told the court. He also said that a typical house could have many users and IP addresses, making it hard to identify one individual.

“The next phase of investigation, in general terms,” Cobden said to Carson, “would involve interviewing the account holder, or persons living at the premises, and conducting a forensic analysis to determine whether certain material was available.” Carson agreed.

The case continues this week, with iiNet managing director Michael Malone expected to take the stand tomorrow.