iiNet wins landmark Copyright case
ISP iiNet has won a landmark Copyright case brought upon it by film studios and the Seven Network.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
ISP iiNet has won a landmark Copyright case brought upon it by film studios and the Seven Network.
Today Justice Dennis Cowdroy said evidence established that iiNet had done no more than to provide an internet service to its users. The Sydney Morning Herald notes the judge 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.
iiNet was found to provide a legitimate communication facility, which was neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright. He ruled that it was only by means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements were enabled.
“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.
The case against iiNet brought by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, included Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox and Disney, and 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.
iiNet said in a statement, “We have never supported or encouraged breaches of the law, including infringement of the Copy Right Act of the Telecommunications Act. Today’s judgment is a vindication of that and the allegations against us have been proven to be unfounded.
“iiNet has always been, and will continue to be, a good corporate citizen and an even better copyright citizen.
“From our perspective today marks the end of the matter and we will continue get on with the business. We will continue to provide Australians with the access to fast and cheap broadband with innovative new services and products.”
AFACT will review the decision before deciding whether to appeal.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald
NB: Please be careful to adhere to this site’s Comments Policy which does not endorse illegal downloads.
32 Responses
In Perth, ABC’s 7pm news bulletin lead story was the iinet case, yet on Ch7, Ch9, Ch10, ACA, and Today Tonight it didn’t even crack a mention, not even as a footnote story. The true bias of private media ownership come to the fore.
…Although, the backdrop screen behind ABC’s WA newsreader with the words in bold font “Download All Clear” was perhaps the wrong signal for ABC to attach to the story!
Also with BT no one person uploads the movies/TV shows once it’s out there and the reference sites that list them keep popping up, take one down and more appear overnight.
Not the studios need to work with the technology already out there, just like Apple and others did with music and are slowly doing with TV and movies. But the biggest problem is people don’t like to wait even a week for a TV show to come here let-alone months or years.
Speaking of, I just got back from LA and OMG the Lost season opener just keeps adding to the questions!
Great news, we don’t need businesses becoming the police.
Anyone notice that 7 didn’t mention this on their 6pm news? LOL
Gotta hate em!
To everybody here that thinks this ruling somehow vindicates your personal theft of copyright material: think again!
It just acquits the middle-man company (iiNet) that continues to profit from illegal downloaders at the expense of the people who actually produce said content. You people haven’t got the green light yet. While I think it should be the downloaders themselves that need to pay the fines or get thrown in jail, I still think it’s too bad iiNet is allowed to continue like nothing happened.
Craig (12:07pm), the only “customers” that studios have are the ones that actually *pay* for their product. People who download from places like BitTorrent are just thieves. If you got bad service from your local shop, does that mean you should steal from them?
Goonies (3:28pm), Channel Seven aren’t being greedy by simply protecting their business model. It’s the illegal downloaders that are the greedy ones.
Mydoona
there are thousands who post up torrents and downloads that would be a nightmare to catch each and every one and they could chnage from where they did it (jurisdiction). There are much fewer ips’s with shareholders and nervous exec on good pay who want it to stay that way that while they were targeted.
Imagine the legal guys at each isp with a contigency plan and cash in reserve in case thge judgement went against iinet.
instead of going after iinet or internet supplier or the person who downloads movies, why don’t they go after the people that post the movie to be downloaded…I mean if someone can download the movie And be caught surely the person who uploaded the movie could be caught too.
@Mac: Was there any doubt he’s an actor?
Thank gawd for that! Common sense prevails!
(Incidentally, I’ve met the bloke from the iinet ads and it’s amazing how many people think he owns the company. He’s an actor, people! And a genuinely nice bloke to boot).
Naked Bob?
Thanks for the clarification.
How many ways can I say ‘sucked in’ to channel 7, greedy bas**ards, maybe if you ran your tv company nwith a bit more respect for your viewers, excessive downloading would not be happening!
Does that mean we can now mention downloads and downloading on this site and not be censored?
Pietro I don’t believe the law changed today!
The subject can be discussed, just as other illegal acts such as jaywalking, murder and refusing to vote can be discussed -the fine line is actually endorsing it. This site liaises with networks and industry so I choose not to operate a site that endorses piracy. If you would like to comment here I ask people to adhere to a few basic principles in order to keep the site respected. I doubt I would be able to supply as much news, interviews, programming etc if networks deemed otherwise. Of course if you want to phrase your thoughts in such a way that could mean you were in the US last week, or purchased a legal DVD, I have no issue with that. Capisce?
A good outcome for what was an unfair, high prejudicial case.
i agree with clint – for once, the legal system seems to have done the right thing.
This could have gone Sooo pear-shaped.
Now that’s out of the way – lets hope the proposed internet censorship laws will get a bl00dy nose too …..
Hollywood should’ve never tried to win the Unwinnable case.. But they went ahead with this foolish move.. Bet they feel like idiots now don’t they!!.
I think iiNet was singled out because they’re considered part of the big three ISPs, but the lesser of them, with, presumably, less deep pockets. That’s usually the best way to get them to capitulate before an expensive court case, which gives victory to AFACT, albeit indirectly.
I think they didn’t quite count on such fierce resistance.
I think if you ever see 7 listed as part of a group action lawsuit you can now assume the accused party will win. They have an appalling track record with lawsuits (from memory they were a party to the action against ICE TV in regards to ownership of TV schedule data along with 9).
This is a fantastic verdict, it’s the equivalent of accusing Telstra, Optus etc of facilitating criminal acts if they don’t disconnect anyone accused of using their phone line to organise a crime. iiNet also provide a ‘freezone’ whereby they direct you to free and legal sources of the type of content they’re accused of illegally facilitating via BitTorrent.
It’s also suspect that they have chosen to single out iiNet as opposed to Telstra/Optus who also refused to disconnect users when given these notices by AFACT. It begs the question whether they chose them, as the third largest ISP, as someone they could potentially run out of business through endless court action, being a much smaller corporation with limited resources?
This is great news – finally an Australian judge who doesn’t make it up as he goes along! “the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another” Amen.
Some of our previous digital copyright decisions have been very creative – and made us one a real legal-outlier internationally.
#Andrew – on why iiNet? They just picked one ISP at random and hoped to crush them so that the others would fall into line.
Common bloody sense prevails! My faith in the justice system in this country has been restored.
Finally a good ruling from the courts, the studios need to fix the problem by providing a better service to it’s customers thus reducing the need/want for people to go else where, prohibition never works!
7 lose in court again. Excellent news.
so why was it that iinet was singled out in the first place? Why not any of the other ISPs?
Great news.
Expect a High Court appeal.
I’m not really surprised by this outcome. As I said in another comment, iiNet is no more responsible for illegal activities through their networks than Australia Post or Telstra is. The prospect of cutting off connections on a mere accusation remains a scary concept.
This is definitely an opportunity for the studios to use the Internet to their advantage and distribute their content, and lawsuits are probably the worst way to get good publicity and successfully adapt to the digital economy.