Tweet
In a surprise verdict, the Australian Federal Court has rejected Hollywood's demands that ISPs cannot be held liable for authorizing infringement if their customers are downloading pirated materials.
The AFACT, a group that has close ties with the MPAA, sued ISP iiNet for not banning users that the AFACT has identified as having downloaded pirated content. iiNet claimed that they did not have the authority to ban users as this was an issue for the police and courts.
The judge in the case, Justice Cowdroy, found that the AFACT's claims were exaggerated when it came to the number of infringers. In his summary, he also found that piracy occurred because of the BitTorrent network, and not the Internet in general, and iiNet did not have control over the BitTorrent network. "... mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement", Justice Cowdroy said in his summary, "Copyright infringement occured as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet ... iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and not responsible for BitTorrent system."
Furthermore, because iiNet has policy to deal with infringement, they are protected under safe harbour provisions, even if the policy wasn't up to the standards requested by the AFACT.
The judge also ordered the AFACT to pay for iiNet's cost, which has amounted to more than $4 million.
iiNet's CEO Michael Malone said he was "relived" at the result. The AFACT expressed their disappointment through executive director Neil Gane. "AFACT will spend the next few days deciding whether to appeal", he said.
More:
Judgement in full:
The AFACT, a group that has close ties with the MPAA, sued ISP iiNet for not banning users that the AFACT has identified as having downloaded pirated content. iiNet claimed that they did not have the authority to ban users as this was an issue for the police and courts.
The judge in the case, Justice Cowdroy, found that the AFACT's claims were exaggerated when it came to the number of infringers. In his summary, he also found that piracy occurred because of the BitTorrent network, and not the Internet in general, and iiNet did not have control over the BitTorrent network. "... mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement", Justice Cowdroy said in his summary, "Copyright infringement occured as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet ... iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and not responsible for BitTorrent system."
Furthermore, because iiNet has policy to deal with infringement, they are protected under safe harbour provisions, even if the policy wasn't up to the standards requested by the AFACT.
The judge also ordered the AFACT to pay for iiNet's cost, which has amounted to more than $4 million.
iiNet's CEO Michael Malone said he was "relived" at the result. The AFACT expressed their disappointment through executive director Neil Gane. "AFACT will spend the next few days deciding whether to appeal", he said.
More:
Judgement in full:
Comment