Talk:Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd

Mysterious court dates

The court dates in the two refs aren't really consistent, and the ZDnet article states that the case won't be heard until October 2009. This sounds strange, but that's what the ref says. cojoco (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The case will begin on the 6th October. 220.233.41.31 (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Costs awarded to iiNet

Nice work going through the iTnews background piece User:Shiftchange. However, I had a read of iiNet's annual report, and the $1.159m is recorded as "Insurance claim refund of legal cost incurred (i) (i) Refund relates to the reimbursement of legal costs incurred in relation to the defence of the Federal Court Action brought by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) against iiNet Limited in November 2008. AFACT Legal costs have been included in the administrative expenses line in the consolidated Income Statement." so I guess the reporter got it wrong, and that's what iiNet got from their insurers, not from AFACT. The actual costs so far aren't split out, but my WP:OR guess is ~$3-4m based on the increase in administrative expenses from the previous year.. TRS-80 (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have a primary source (iiNet annual report) that contradicts a secondary source (author Ben Grubb), then please make the changes to improve accuracy based on the primary source. I was looking to provide some of the reasons for the delay in proceedings. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

michael malone

“ when i clicked on the iinets ceo name it went to an american author(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Malone) this link is wrong and not relevant to the case.

i suggest that it be linked to the iinet wikipedia page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IiNet) not to some american authour. –— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.129.71 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done for something like that you can WP:BEBOLD, you don't need to ask. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was this moved?

Why was this moved from AFACT v iiNet to Roadshow Films v iiNet? Wikipedia goes by the popular name, not the "proper" name, all the media sources refer to it as "AFACT v iiNet" so it should be moved back to AFACT v iiNet. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be AFACT v iiNet, the only reason it's technical name is Roadshow Films is the first complaintant on the list. - 15.195.201.87 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded! cojoco (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing technical about it. This is its name. AFACT is not even a party to the case. Indeed his honour makes the following recurring observation throughout the decision: 'The exact nature of the relationship between the applicants and AFACT is not clear.' 'the exact relationship between AFACT and the actual copyright owners (the applicants) is, at best, unclear.' 58.110.151.182 (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant; Multiple reliable sources call this case AFACT v iiNet, therefore wikipedia is compelled to call it AFACT v iiNet. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Many legal cases are commonly referred to by other names or shortened forms. Most cases on wikipedia (both Australian and international) appear to be at their proper citation. see. e.g. Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd. or Commonwealth v Tasmania . I see no good reason why this should be an exception. To make it one would be to misrepresent who the complainant is. It is not AFACT. 58.110.151.182 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AFACT

Why doesn't the article describe what an AFACT is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.51.8 (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Diplomatic" and/or political involvements?

I believe that this page should contain some mention of the alleged US "diplomatic" involvement as evidenced by the wikileaks cables http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/11/08CANBERRA1197.html# and a rather recent write-up in a (perhaps less NPOV) torrentfreak post http://torrentfreak.com/australia-us-copyright-colony-or-just-a-good-friend-120121/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khing (talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Roadshow Films v iiNet is mostly about the trial court decision; AFACT v iiNet Ltd is mostly about the subsequent appeals. Given that the HCA decision mostly supersedes the reasoning of the lower decisions, the articles should be merged into one. Even if there are to be separate articles, it makes no sense to give them inconsistent names. splintax ^(talk) 07:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I’m about to have a crack at merging AFACT v iiNet Ltd here. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC).