• An Image Slideshow
  • An Image Slideshow
  • An Image Slideshow
  • An Image Slideshow
  • An Image Slideshow
  • An Image Slideshow

*phew*

In a landmark decision by the Federal Court, iiNet has won the lawsuit brought upon it by AFACT. The ruling sets a precedence for every ISP in Australia, and results in ISP's not being responsible for infringment of copyright material on thier networks.

Here's an excerpt of the ruling:

14. Thirdly, I find that iiNet simply cannot be seen as sanctioning, approving or countenancing copyright infringement. The requisite element of favouring infringement on the evidence simply does not exist. The evidence clearly establishes that iiNet has done no more than provide an internet service to its users. This can be clearly contrasted with the respondents in the Cooper and Kazaa proceedings, in which the respondents intended copyright infringements to occur, and in the circumstances where the website and software respectively were deliberately structured to achieve this result.

19. The result of this proceeding will disappoint the applicants. The evidence establishes that copyright infringement of the applicants’ films is occurring on a large scale, and I infer that such infringements are occurring worldwide. However, such a fact does not necessitate or compel, and can never necessitate or compel, a finding of authorisation, merely because it is felt that ’something must be done’ to stop the infringements. An ISP such as iiNet provides a legitimate communication facility which is neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright. It is only be means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements are enabled, although it must be recognised that the BitTorrent system can be used for legitimate purposes as well. iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user chooses to make use of that system to bring about copyright infringement.”

And a statement from iiNet CEO Michael Malone:

"We are delighted with the result and largely just relieved that it is over, We welcome the outcome. We said from the beginning we did not believe we ever authorised copyright."

You can read a bit more about it in this article (plus many more if you can find them).

 

Comments  

 
0 #1 Freeborne 2010-02-04 15:54
:)
Hip Hip Hooray.
It was all bullsh!t from the beginning but it's nice to know 'the people' won this time.

Interesting that despite this ruling, the government is going to impose laws that WILL make it the ISP's responsibility to stop copyright infringement (and illegal pornography/games/etc)
Quote
 
 
0 #2 cm. 2010-02-04 16:11
Quoting Freeborne:
:)
Hip Hip Hooray.
It was all bullsh!t from the beginning but it's nice to know 'the people' won this time.

Interesting that despite this ruling, the government is going to impose laws that WILL make it the ISP's responsibility to stop copyright infringement (and illegal pornography/games/etc)


You have a source for that? It's the first I've heard of it.
Quote
 
 
0 #3 rico 2010-02-04 17:38
Wow, common sence in the courts, thats unusual, great to see this result!
Quote
 
 
0 #4 Freeborne 2010-02-04 20:02
I'm talking about the proposed internet censorship filtering law (as in Australian Internet Blackout from last week).
I just found it interesting that the courts ruled an ISP is not responsible for monitoring or enforcing customers who conduct illegal activity, yet at the same time the government is proposing a law that will force all ISP's to do just that, and block customers from visiting illegal content.
Quote
 

Add comment

Keep the comments civil. Swearing is okay except when used excessively.


Security code
Refresh