Looks like the battle is rolling on over who said what, when, where, and why.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1135Having ordered that Sharman cease facilitating copyright infringement through use of the Kazaa software, Justice Murray Wilcox gave them just two months to comply. In particular, Sharman were ordered to implement filtering to specifically prevent infringement within Australia. As a consequence, Sharman simply put up a rather desultory notice on their website denying access to Australian users.
Considering this to amount to a failure to comply by the December 5th deadline, ARIA, the Australian equivalent to the RIAA, commenced proceedings against Sharman for contempt of court.
In a heated court battle, Sharman argued that the recording industry had been obstructive, claiming that they had complied with an albeit ambiguous ruling and were not therefore in contempt of court. An exasperated Justice Wilcox deferred matters to an expedited full hearing, which was chaired by Justice Catherine Branson.
Justice Branson disagreed that the earlier ruling was ambiguous, saying that it could be argued that Sharman "jointly decided that neither they, nor any of them, would accord any respect to the orders made by (Justice Wilcox)."
Justices Kevin Lindgren and Ray Finkelstein concurred with Justice Branson’s deliberations, giving the record companies the green light to pursue the contempt proceedings
Lets see more dirt fly here, the legal music mafia themselves took measures to frustrate the order so I will be interested in how the court view this when its presented in defence of Sharmans actions.
