The giants of the film industry have lost their case against ISP iiNet in a landmark judgement handed down in the Federal Court today.
The decision had the potential to impact internet users and the internet industry profoundly as it sets a legal precedent surrounding how much ISPs are required to do to prevent customers from downloading movies and other content illegally.
But after an on-and-off eight-week trial that examined whether iiNet authorised customers to download pirated movies, Justice Dennis Cowdroy found that the ISP was not liable for the downloading habits of its customers.
In a summary of his 200-page judgement read out in court this morning, Justice Cowdroy said the evidence established that iiNet had done no more than to provide an internet service to its users.
He found that, while iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring and did not act to stop them, such findings did not necessitate a finding of authorisation.
He said an ISP such as iiNet provided a legitimate communication facility, which was neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright.
He said it was only by means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements were enabled, but iiNet had no control over this system.
“iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user uses that system to bring about copyright infringement … the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another,” Justice Cowdroy said.
Common sense prevails. Whoda thunk it!
UPDATE : Some interesting elements extracted from the judgement can be found here.
Good! No judge/jury could possibly have ruled against iiNet unless the ISP had actually promoted itself as “the place to download illegal content” which it certainly didn’t.
The main argument the prosecution seemed to be relying on is that in order to provide its customers with better value iiNet introduced higher bandwidth plans at competitive prices, thats it!
So by the same logic, if a car maker made a car with higher MPG then that car maker would be guilty of deliberately trying to cause the downfall and great loss of earnings to the big petroleum corporations.
Too bad that won’t fly in the US.
If you rent a car and get into an accident. In the US they’ll sue the rental agency too because they have deeper pockets even though the rental agency is in no way at fault.
Commonsense prevails until the lobbyists from the movie studios write up a law and pass it onto those lawmakers beholden to them that will force the ISP to be their b*tch.
Is Australia party to the proposed ACTA treaty being negotiated in secret in a Mexican resort this month? This is the treaty the requires world wide 3-strikes and a lifetime internet ban for only accusations of downloading from the RIAA or MPAA.
If so, wouldn’t that treaty then change AU law so that the Aussie ISPs are required to police and blacklist subscribers?
It’s a smokescreen.
-wait to the loons in our congress produce the cybercrime of the century so that only officially “approved” content will be allowed on the net. All computer tcp/ip packets will be lo-jacked and PC will have a “Net Nanny” welded to every chip on the main board.
-you know, to protect the “innocent children” from the “innocent priests” and the like..
-s
Tbh, I would find it hillarious if ACTA in its current form was enacted around here — my first course of action as someone who occasionally submits reports to the government offices would be to accuse them of distributing those reports without consent, three times, and then BAM! no more internet for the Government! >:D
#7, there should be an app for that!
Next maybe we can get rid of the notion that the presence of a link on a page constitutes an “enticement” to commit a sin.
Oh, & the word “judgment” has eight letters.
The analogies are totally wrong. A car rental agency has the intimate ability to review who is driving their vehicles.
It has long been accepted that the press (newspapers and magazines) and broadcast stations are not responsible for the content of their advertisers. In other, practical terms, privately owned toll roads are not responsible for the goods carried on their roads. Telephone companies are not responsible for what is said over their equipment. In fact, there are restrictions on most companies to deny access to their equipment.
@9 t0llyb0ng…
‘judgement’ is British English, as used in Australia, where the quote originated