Iinet Slays Hollywood In Landmark Piracy Case

[JAS-25T]

iiNet slays Hollywood in landmark piracy case

ASHER MOSES

February 4, 2010 - 10:06AM

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 profoundly impact internet users and the internet industry 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 judgment 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 provides a legitimate communication facility which is 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.

Justice Cowdroy remarked that the case had attracted widespread interest both in Australia and abroad. It was the first Australian trial to be covered on Twitter and the first trial of its kind in the world to proceed to hearing and judgment.

The suit against iiNet was filed in November 2008 by a group of the biggest Hollywood studio including Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox and Disney, as well as the Seven Network.

They claimed iiNet was liable for ‘‘authorising’’ copyright infringement on its network because it did not warn or disconnect offending customers when repeatedly notified of the infringements by the movie studios.

The studios had hired an online investigator firm to intercept BitTorrent traffic over 59 weeks and record instances of iiNet users downloading pirated movies.

iiNet argued that it was not required by law to act on ‘‘mere allegations’’ of copyright infringement, that customers were innocent until proven guilty in court, and that the case was like suing the electricity company for things people do with their electricity.

But during the trial iiNet’s managing director Michael Malone conceded that the notices provided by the movie studios presented “compelling evidence” of copyright infringement by iiNet customers.

However, iiNet’s legal counsel, Richard Cobden, said privacy provisions in the Telecommunications Act prevented it from forwarding the studios’ infringement notices to customers.

He said iiNet was also protected under Safe Harbour provisions of the Copyright Act, which limit an ISP’s liability if it takes ‘‘reasonable steps’’ to deal with repeat copyright infringers.

The barrister for the studios, Tony Bannon, said that iiNet failed to take any ‘‘reasonable steps’’ to combat copyright infringement.

He said iiNet’s practice of forwarding infringement notices to police and stating in its terms and conditions that illegal downloading was not permitted – while not enforcing this rule - did not constitute reasonable steps.

The studios also presented email evidence which showed that, despite iiNet’s claims that it could not act on the notices, Westnet, which was acquired by iiNet in May 2008, was in fact passing them on to customers until Malone told a Westnet senior staff member to drop the policy.

Other ISPs, including TPG, have also been passing copyright infringement notices on to customers.

Cobden said the studios were trying to place an ‘‘unreasonable burden’’ on ISPs, and that ‘‘we will not take on the rights holders’ outsourcing of their rights enforcement’’.

Justice Cowdory agreed. and said, while iiNet was entitled to protection under the Safe Harbour provisions, there was no need for iiNet to take advantage of this as he did not find it authorised its users' copyright infringement.

He found that a scheme for notification, suspension and termination of customer account was not in this instance a relevant power to prevent copyright infringement.

[Mayuri Krab]

This should send a clear message to those hollywood copyright **** that there are parts of the world where they can't just sue who ever they want & always get their way!

Good to see the Judge had some common sense in him unlike stupid ass Conroy with his Nazi internet filter.

[R31Nismoid]

ye saw this earlier - about fken time.

Good to see Aussie courts finally making a decent ruling without following the idiots in the US like puppies

[bozodos]

I am SO relieved about this ruling, it had some bad ramifications if it had turned out badly for iinet.

[Mayuri Krab]

This particular battle might have being won, but the long copyright war has just began...

A interesting article I found: LINK

This week the Federal court has thrown out AFACT's case against iiNet, leaving its lawyers all dressed up with no-one to sue. While you can be sure there will be appeals, the copyright police will obviously be looking for a new target. You.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Mayuri Krab

[JAS-25T]

Yeah, because they have the time and resources to sue millions of people.

What are they going to do? claim against the government (our taxes)?

They've already said they can't do that.

[bozodos]

the other thing was that when they tried that in the US (suing innocent people) there was a huge backlash strangely enough because shock horror it turned out that young kids and grannies were amongst those that were getting sued!

The thing to watch out for is Stephen Conjob Conroy setting up more privacy invading legislation to make it easier for AFACT etc to shaft the endusers.

[Beer Baron]

yes it was a good result. makes me proud to be a iinet customer. and it's not about allowing people to download pirated videos. it's about protecting peoples freedoms and privacy and not turning your ISP into another internet policeman.

[NickR33]

me too... they just gave us another 25gig a month to have fun with as well... good on ya iinet:)

[DRD-00F]

We've been discussing this at the office all week.

Being an internet provider, we we're watching it very closely. We get the notifications about illegal downloads now and then, but by law, we don't have to do anything about it. iiNet were doing exactly as we were, following the law. You don't see Holden getting sued everytime one of their cars crash. You don't see the water board getting sued everytime someone drowns in a pool.

Long story short, we provide an internet connecting service, not a child minding service.

[mad082]

We've been discussing this at the office all week.

Being an internet provider, we we're watching it very closely. We get the notifications about illegal downloads now and then, but by law, we don't have to do anything about it. iiNet were doing exactly as we were, following the law. You don't see Holden getting sued everytime one of their cars crash. You don't see the water board getting sued everytime someone drowns in a pool.

Long story short, we provide an internet connecting service, not a child minding service.

a better analogy would be to sue holden for people speeding in its cars

[Mayuri Krab]

a better analogy would be to sue holden for people speeding in its cars

If that happened Holden would have being long broke by now...

[MSTRshenanigans]

I read this the other day.... baby steps towards freedom of your internets...

[Mayuri Krab]

Lets hope that stupid Conroy proposed internet filter follows the same fate.

[atomaly]

Conroy is an idiot, internet filtering was never and will never be a plausible solution.

its up to parents to tell their kids what not look at / teach them morals.. but after all.. you're a kid so one way or another you're going to see or do what your parents DON'T want you to see.. unless you're a brainwashed slave (yay for religious extremists)

and a big thumbs up to the decision. yay for iinet standing up.!

the movie industry pretty much makes me boycott buying DVD's now because of all the stupid shit they're doing.

[beno254]

If that happened Holden would have being long broke by now...

either that or more bogans driving hsvs ....