Thank god for commen sense - Australia saves the net !!!

[Strider]

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/tec ... utostart=1

iiNet slays Hollywood in landmark piracy case
ASHER MOSES
February 4, 2010 - 11:26AM

The giants of the film industry have lost their case against ISP iiNet in a landmark judgment handed down in the Federal Court today.

The decision had the potential to impact internet users and the internet industry profoundly 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 provided a legitimate communication facility, which was 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.

Neil Gane, executive director of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, which brought the case on behalf of the studios, said the decision was a set back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry.

"But we believe this decision was based on a technical finding centred on the court’s interpretation of how infringements occur and the ISP's ability to control them."

He said AFACT would review the decision before deciding whether to appeal.

iiNet welcomed the decision and reiterated that it has never supported nor encouraged illegal file sharing.

The suit against iiNet was filed in November 2008 by a group of the biggest Hollywood studios 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 that, 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 accounts was not in this instance a relevant power to prevent copyright infringement.

Source: smh.com.au

[CMDRRABB]

There really are people on that small island down there.

[Strider]

Stoopid arrogant Musci and Film Studios are appealing! EPIC FAIL:

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/tec ... -p4vx.html

Movie studios appeal against iiNet piracy ruling
February 25, 2010 - 4:23PM

Hollywood film studios today lodged an appeal against a landmark legal judgment which found an Australian Internet provider was not responsible for illegal movie downloads by its customers.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), representing a consortium of 34 studios, said the Federal Court's ruling was out of step with well-established copyright law.

"The court found large scale copyright infringements (proven), that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them," said Neil Gane, executive director of AFACT.

"In line with previous case law, this would have amounted to authorisation of copyright infringement."

Gane said AFACT had filed an appeal with the Federal Court arguing it had erred on 15 grounds, setting a dangerous precedent that allowed Internet companies to turn a blind eye to copyright theft.

"The decision harms not just the studios that produce and distribute movies, but also Australia’s creative community and all those whose livelihoods depend on a vibrant entertainment industry," he said.

iiNet chief executive Michael Malone said he regretted AFACT's decision to prolong the legal battle.

"It is more than disappointing and frustrating that the studios have chosen this unproductive path," Malone said.

"This legal case has not stopped one illegal download and further legal appeals will not stop piracy."

The closely-watched case, which involved major studios such as Warner Bros, Disney, Paramount, Columbia and Twentieth Century Fox, was seen as an ambitious attempt to force ISPs to act against piracy.

It hinged on thousands of downloads over the Perth-based iiNet network, Australia's third-largest ISP, over 59 weeks from June 2008 involving nearly 90 films and TV series including "Batman Begins", "Transformers" and "Heroes".

The movie studios hoped to set a worldwide precedent forcing ISPs to act against offenders, while Internet rights groups feared it would compel the firms to cut customers' web access without having to take them to court.