John Linton
........the lawyers will be offering you their advice on how to alleviate your eternal damnation.
One of our employees received this via email yesterday afternoon:
"John Fairbairn (Partner) and Timothy Webb (Senior Associate) from Clayton Utz who represented the IIA at the iiNet trial will be holding a briefing for ISPs on the issues raised in the case and lessons for Australian ISPs.
They will discuss the key facts behind the case, the Applicants' allegations and iiNet's defences, the position taken by the IIA and
Justice Cowdroy's judgment, the likely path going forward, and the implications of the case for Australian ISPs.
It will be a highly informative, topical and interactive discussion.This exclusive briefing is essential for ISPs in managing their responses to rights holders.
Date: Thursday 17 December
Time 5.00pm - 7.00pm (presentation commences 5.30pm)
Venue: Clayton Utz, Level 34, 1 O'Connell St, Sydney,
Admission: Free to all ISP staff."
Apart from the oddity of commercial lawyers apparently seeking to provide "free advice" and the strangeness of lawyers actually still working on an evening a week before Christmas there is quite a bit to speculate about in receiving such an invitation. Unless it has completely escaped my attention, Justice Cowdroy has not made his decision on the litigation itself so I am assuming the reference to "Justice Cowdroy's decision" means the lawyer's view of why the judge ruled the IIA irrelevant to the court action.....so I'm not at all sure what that part of the 'briefing' might mean. Obviously I don't have any idea of to whom this email invitation has been sent and I would have thought that the bulk of ISPs most likely to be interested in 'free' legal advice on copyright issues are not in Sydney so the location also puzzles me a little.
I have zero legal knowledge (we like all small commercial enterprises rely on outside law firms to protect our interests and advise us when the need arises) so I can't begin to speculate on what this strange invitation meansĀ (I wonder if they sent it to iinet?). However it would be 'safish' to assume that would be part of a strategy by AFACT/their lawyers to use the current hiatus to further their interests in some ways that are beneficial to their client rather than as a 'spirit of the festive season' good will gesture to provide expensive 'expert' legal advise to their client's "enemies" - unless you really do believe in Santa Claus. I will get some advice as to whether anyone from Exetel will attend this 'event' from our legal advisers who handled our responses to the AFACT demands that ended up with iinet's embarrassing performance and their multi-million dollar legal bill (so far).
I think, personally, that Exetel should not, in any way, involve itself with the IIA's tainted views as expressed by their cat's paw iinet and embarrass ourselves by appearing to be as stupid as iinet has been. In general terms (backed by what we believe to be competent legal advice) we have always held the view that it is possible to act legally and ethically in dealing with AFACT's or other "rights holders" requirement and to do what iinet did (at the IIA's behest) was just plain stupid. We have no intention of being drawn into a childish 'gathering together ' in mutual protection from the 'boogey man'.
My guess is that iinet/IIA lawyers have reached the view that AFACT are going to win their current case and iinet is screwed and, irrespective of any appeal, the whole ongoing scenario is going to be unpleasant and these parties want company on their personal Ship Of Fools.