Entertainment cartels admit BitTorrent deal
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- If you’ve been following the world-wide efforts of Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music to gain exclusive control of the net so they can peddle their cookie-cutter ‘product’ unhindered, you’ll have come across the name Tony Bannon (right).
Kazaa, owned by Ausralia’s Sharman Networks, is arguably the most despised of all P2P applications. Apart from the fact Sharman used it to introduce spyware to the internet, it’s also implicated in the majority of RIAA sue ‘em all file sharing cases.
After masquerading as a supporter of the P2P communities, Sharman achieved its real goal of getting into bed with the labels. But it was expensive. It had first to go through what might be described as a bizarre initiation under which it was sued by Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, the very people it’d been striving to forge a business relationship with.
Ultimately, it ’settled’ with the Big 4 to the tune of a reported $115 million, and front and centre on behalf of the labels throughout was Oz entertainment cartel Oz lawyer Tony Bannon.
Now, “A group of entertainment companies suing iiNet for copyright infringement in the NSW Federal Court has accused the Perth ISP of trying to turn the trial into a ‘political forum’,” says Australian IT.
And Bannon is front and centre once again.
“As the case entered its fourth day, the group’s lead barrister Tony Bannon SC levelled the allegation as part of an explosive response to iiNet’s claim that studios pursuing the case entered into commercial contracts with BitTorrent.com and an associated site, mininova.org,” says story.
But, “Bannon told the court that the contracts had been terminated a year ago,” something iiNet, “deliberately omitted,” as “part of strategy to divert the court’s attention from ‘legally relevant facts, of the case”.
In a bid to underplay the unquestionable significance of the case, Bannon also, “took exception to suggestions to media characterisations of the trial as being ‘landmark’,” says the story.
Recenty AFACT, the movie studios’ mouthpiece in Australia, for the second time withdrew allegations in its case against Perth ISP iiNet.
AFACT, short for Australian Farcical Allegations against Copyright Transgressions, or Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, dropped charges that iiNet cached illegal copies of films on its servers.
Owned by Hllywood’s MPAA, it’s suing iiNet for allegedly failing to take “reasonable steps” to stop copyright infringements on its network.
“The case was brought before the court after iiNet allegedly rejected requests from AFACT to take action over allegations that some of its customers were using file-sharing software to illegally trade movies and music on its network,” says the post, adding:
“The court will hear a large amount of evidence gathered by AFACT investigators during a 59-week investigation in which it monitored file-sharing activity by iiNet customers.”
Australian IT trial coverage amp
- iiNet ommitted key BitTorrent facts – October 09, 2009
- AFACT had hidden agenda: iiNet – October 09, 2009
- iiNet says no laws were breached – October 08, 2009
- iiNet case to determine future of downloads – October 07, 2009
- ISP, content owners in copyright court battle – October 06, 2009
Stay tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
sue ‘em all file sharing cases – Kazaa, the RIAA and Jammie Thomas, October 17, 2008
Australian IT – No BitTorrent contracts: studios, October 9, 2009
withdrew allegations – Hollywood drops another part of iiNet claim, September 30, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 10th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“Bannon told the court that the contracts had been terminated a year ago,”
lol
But judge, I stopped stealing a year ago, so it doesn’t count.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
How many laws did AFACT break gathering its data ?
October 11th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Actually the question should really be asked – why is AFACTS suing iiNet when the biggest DVD copying operation ever seen was unearthed in the SA Police headquarters a couple of years ago.
Yep actual police officers copying each others DVD’s onto the Police Department server so that other police officers could download their movie of choice……
Shouldnt AFACTS be suing the police? Or is iiNet a “softer” target.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Tony Bannon (right) is a target.
Aquired.
Thanks.