Updated: iiNet wins court case against AFACT
- 04 February, 2010 09:59
- Comments 5
The Federal Court has ruled in favour of iiNet in a copyright case launched by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) that has captured worldwide attention.
In his verdict today, presiding judge, Justice Cowdroy, concluded that iiNet did not authorise infringements and ordered AFACT to pay iiNet's legal cost. While he conceded the applicants' copyright had been breached, the infringements were the result of the users directly and not the ISP's network.
He said iiNet was covered by the "safe harbour" policy pertaining to personal information and privacy conditions followed by ISPs.
According to the judge, notification, suspension and termination of Internet user accounts was not a relevant way to tackle copyright breeches.
“It is impossible to conclude iiNet has authorised copyright infringements,” Justice Cowdroy said.
He highlighted iiNet did not control the BitTorrent system - the main tool used for illegal downloads – and was therefore not responsible for the operation the software client.
The verdict marks the end of round one in the lengthy court battle between AFACT and iiNet. AFACT is expected to appeal and further litigation reach the High Court.
Outside the court, iiNet chief, Michael Malone, said the result would not change how the company operates in the future and the outcome today showws taking legal action against ISPs is not the way to tackle copyright issues.
Herefuted claims the verdict will condone or encourage further piracy activities by Internet users.
AFACT said it was disappointed with the result.
Most ISPs were reticent to comment during the trial process but industry groups had expressed apprehension over a possible AFACT victory.
The Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) claimed Internet users would ultimately suffer if AFACT wins the case. Both groups are considering participating as amicus curiae, a 'friend of the court', should the appeal process goes through.
AFACT initiated the case as a representative for several high-profile movie studios. The anti-piracy organisation claimed iiNet 'authorised' copyright infringements on its network by not cutting off the Internet of alleged offending users.
iiNet claimed ISPs have no obligation to police the Internet.
For a full timeline of events around the AFACT vs iiNet case, click here
Come socialise with us! Facebook | LinkedIn
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- Red Light In the Control Centre Saves Hours of Chaos
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Continues to Be a Major Player
- Spectra Logic and Australian National University Success Story - March 2012
- Market Potential-Strategy Guide to the Active Archive Market
- Premier Media Group Fast Study
-
Tech Watch: Who watches the datacentre?
-
Facebook scammers host Trojan horse extensions on the Chrome Web Store
-
Webroot: Growth in security
-
Sice quits Acronis, joins Staples
-
Sice quits Acronis, joins Staples
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
Anonymous
This is just awesome.
Anonymous
They got it correct.
Anonymous
A sensible judgement re bit-torrent usage
Good on you Judge!
Ever since the dawn of invention there has been the battle between people who use a tool it for it's intended purpose or for wrongdoing. The tool is not at fault. Fire, guns, even razor blades all have this problem.
iiNet is not the only ISP that has users using it's bandwidth to illegally download music and movies using bittorrent tools. It was a worry when the action was taken against iiNet - a "bit" player - and not against a giant ISP like Telstra or Optus, it seemed like it was intended to give AFACT an easy win; a thin edge against bittorrent usage by all ISPs.
Bittorrent is the ONLY way to properly watch Live TV on the web. http://www.tvunetworks.com is an excellent example of this.
Anonymous
Well done
Shona
iinet wins court case
Congratulations to the Australian Federal Court for upholding the law and not being bullied by the big guns of the film industry! Why go after iinet? There are numerous larger ISP providers in Australia. Did the film industry assume they were an easy target perhaps? Pick on someone your own size!!!
Box office takings continue to rise, and even smash takings from previous years. The film industry fails to realise the global changes taking place in communication. The internet and globalisation have led to social change, for better or worse. The market for entertainment has also changed.
CD's and DVD's are easily scratched and ruined. If film makers were to put their content online on a charge per download basis, copyright infringement would decrease. Of that I am sure. Instead, the film industry refuses to accept the massive changes the internet has introduced.
More and more movies are released each year. The film industry grows larger. People no longer want to wait months until the movie comes out on DVD. Waiting times for DVD releases simply generate more revenue for the industry. Hollywood actors are being paid millions of dollars, each film, for simply doing their job while nurses, doctors, teachers, the armed forces, and other essential service providers continue to work for a pittance. It's no wonder films cost so much to create. This is a chance for the film industry to take a good hard look at itself and stop ripping off the general public. I wonder if they will?
WAKE UP Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox and Disney. The people have spoken. Search within and realise demand has evolved. Accept social change and provide a better service. Stop bullying - it's not acceptable behaviour.
Shona, Brisbane, Australia
Post new comment