Külföldi torrent oldalak First Test Of Anti-piracy Website-blocking Laws Targets Small Isp

Major copyright owners like Foxtel and Village Roadshow are nowhere to be seen in the first known test of Australia's new anti-piracy, site-blocking legislation, which targets a small, unnamed internet service provider.

But experts argue the case is unlikely to succeed in court under the laws, introduced in June, because the target website falls outside the definition of an infringing website under the Copyright Act.

The ABC has published a letter from Moray & Agnew lawyers which asks the ISP to block a website based in India because it reproduces images and trademarks from Australian builder Simonds. The ISP only has a few thousand customers and has not acceded to the request, the report said.

The letter was reportedly sent last week and asks the ISP to block access to the website chmconstructions.com within seven days or face legal action in the Federal Court.

"It has been brought to our attention that a website purporting to have licensing or other relationship with Simonds is presently infringing upon Simonds' rights pursuant to intellectual property law and the Copyright Act 1968," the letter reads.

The website, run by a company which appears to be based in India, reproduces branding from and contains links back to Simonds' website. Moray & Agnew said their client has no connection to chmconstructions.com and has not given the company permission to use its insignia.

"Accordingly, we consider it incumbent upon you, as an internet service provider, to cease providing access to an online location outside Australia, the primary purpose of which is to facilitate the infringement of copyright," the lawyers state.

But Sydney Law School's Kimberlee Weatherall, who specialises in copyright law, said the primary purpose of chmconstructions.com did not seem to be to infringe or facilitate infringement of copyright.

"Any infringement of copyright seems to be incidental to the true purpose — likely identity theft [or] diversion of trade," Associate Professor Weatherall said.

The Explanatory Memorandum for the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 was "very specific" in setting "an intentionally high threshold for the copyright owner to meet as a safeguard against any potential abuse", she said.

Ms Weatherall described the letter as an "enterprising use of an undoubted court power".

The Australian Copyright Council's Fiona Simmons argued a similar case when speaking with the ABC, saying it was not about copyright but about trademarks and misleading or deceptive conduct, which would therefore not be covered by the site-blocking legislation.

It is unclear whether Moray & Agnew sent letters to other ISPs on behalf of Simonds. The firm has been contacted for comment.

A spokeswoman for TPG Telecom, which owns Perth-based ISP iiNet, said to her knowledge TPG had not received the letter.

"In any case ... an ISP doesn't need to block a website until ordered to do so by the Federal Court," the spokeswoman said.

Spokespeople for Telstra and Optus would not confirm or deny if their companies had received such a letter but said they would comply with any court order if one arose.

A Foxtel spokesperson said Foxtel was still looking at how best to work with the new site-blocking legislation, but had "nothing to announce at this time".