Whilst I’m reading through the summary of closing arguments from iiNet, I can’t help but laugh at the way layers get to ridicule their opposition in such flowery phrases. Some of my favourites:

Perhaps the overexcitement with which the applicants sometimes manifested the argument is to be understood in this way. If one looks at the issues raised purely from the perspective of movie studios, and on the assumption that the most important thing on iiNet.s agenda should be to deal with their complaints about copyright infringement, it is perhaps understandable. It is when one looks at it from the perspective of the iiNet business as a whole that it becomes narcissistic to say the least.

And a footnote in the second chapter, when discussing other ISPs (including Unwired) that haven’t been pursued for similar behaviour:

Seven Network (Operations) Limited is of course the 34th applicant in the present proceeding. To say that it runs with the hares and hunts with the hounds would be charitable at the very least.

More, still only on the second chapter too :)

2-98. In many respects, the applicants. harsh commentary on the effect of Mr Malone.s evidence, including his credit and character, has the same quality of exaggeration as other aspects of the applicants. case.

I’m also very interested in seeing the following statement regarding the incorrect lodgement of notices to iiNet (and in fact, all ISPs):

2-45. iiNet.s evidence shows examples of iiNet.s compliance with requests from copyright owners under the safe harbour regime, including taking action in relation to takedown notices in respect of categories other than category A activities. It also shows the problems that iiNet faces in dealing with up to 350 non-compliant emails a day from content owners, including some of the applicants in this proceeding, in circumstances where around 96% of emails received by iiNet are required to be filtered as spam.

I am aware that most notices sent to ISPs cite the DMCA Act of 1998, which does not exist here in Australia - and I’m fairly certain that ISPs are right to ignore these messages. If possible I will be reading the cited statements to see if this is what they’re referring to.

For those playing from home, the closing statements for iiNet can be found here:

Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (with attachment).

Schedules: 1, 2, 3, 4