AFACT vs iiNet - iiNet wins

Anything newsworthy. Or newsworthy for being spectacularly un-newsworthy.
Forum rules
RTFA is assumed - do not reply unless you've read the linked article.
User avatar
Cartollomew
I has a monocle (Site Admin)
Posts:8805
Joined:22 Aug 2006, 12:11
Location:Perth
AFACT vs iiNet - iiNet wins

Post by Cartollomew » 04 Feb 2010, 13:55

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article ... d=78268965

This is good news; although it is possible for AFACT to appeal to the High Court (unlikely they'll win at this stage though, imo).

I'm not one to err on the side of wholesale copyright infringement, but I maintain that almost every effort the various industries invested in IP have put into preventing or mitigating infringement has been damaging to themselves.

As a result of their actions for example, Apple now has the real stranglehold on online music sales - this is the kind of area that record companies should have dominated, and instead they are almost an irrelevance.

Additionally, there was another case decided today:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 809848.htm

In short:

Men at Work released a song in the 80s: Land Down Under
It featured a riff played on flute that was probably lifted straight from the song Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree, written in 1934.
The company who bought the rights to Kookaburra recently sued Men at Work for stealing said riff - they're asking up to 60% of royalties as damages.

Our IP law is pretty fucked up.
Who do you think you are? If you'd stopped winning, you could have been the Biggest Loser, if you gave up, you could have been a Survivor, if you'd stopped reading Orwell, you could have been on Big Brother!

Post Reply