AFACT was ordered to pay costs.
One year later, an appeal to the Federal Court by AFACT was dismissed, although AFACT claimed a partial victory because the court ruled that iiNet had the means to prevent its users from infringing copyright.
However, the court found that iiNet was not liable because it had not authorised the copyright infringements. AFACT intends to dispute and overturn that finding.
Representing the film companies, Executive Director of AFACT Neil Gane said, 'The Full Federal Court unanimously found that iiNet had the power to prevent the infringements of its users from occurring and that there were reasonable steps it could have taken, including issuing warnings.'
'However two judges of the Full Court went on to find that iiNet had not authorised the infringements of its users and that is what we are appealing,' Mr Gane said. 'We say they did not apply the legal test for authorisation correctly.'
'On appeal, iiNet did not challenge the findings of the trial judge that they knew the infringements were taking place, yet two of the judges of the Full Court re-opened the issue of iiNet's knowledge. We will argue that the Court's approach in this regard was incorrect,' Mr Gane said.
'In response to the Full Court's conclusion that iiNet did not have have sufficient knowledge of the infringements to authorise them, the film companies will argue that iiNet did have sufficient knowledge, that it admitted the acts of infringement and that its CEO admitted on the stand that the evidence was 'compelling'.
'We are confident of our grounds for appeal and hopeful that special leave to the High Court will be granted,' Mr Gane said.