New Anti-Piracy Law In Australia Already Being Abused (abc.net.au)
Gumbercules!! writes: A small Australian ISP has received a demand that it block access to an overseas website or face legal action in the Federal Court, in a case in which a building company is demanding the ISP block access to an overseas site with a similar name. This case is being seen as a test case, potentially opening the way for companies and aggregated customers to use the new anti-piracy laws to block access to companies or their competition. The ISP in question has obviously been selected because they're very small and have limited financial capacity to fight a legal case.
The whole point of this is to avoid going after the correct organizations that have laws and lawyers on their side and instead get what you want via a backdoor opened by this law that allows you to go after the smaller fish that don't have the resources to fight your will in court and then, once you have the court judgement, you can use it to browbeat the larger players into submission without ever having to challenge them in court directly as they were never a party to the original claim but, the judgement will apply to them anyway. It's a dirty trick that I'm sure was put in this law by design as large players such as ICANN and Google have been very successful at fighting off claims like this in court. Now they will be able to get court orders against them without ever having to directly face them. No one can believably claim that this is an "accidental" legal loophole provided by the law. It was just obfuscated enough to get it past the general public without much of a fight.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
If you go to the infringing site you might get the impression that this is the Australian builder. It is not. Scroll to the bottom and the contact info is in India. The actual Simonds Homes is something else.
Looks like deceptive practice on the part of CHM Constructions. What can Simonds do to defend itself?