Background[ edit ] The case against iiNet was filed on 20 November The alleged offence needs to be pursued by the police and proven in the courts. AFACT requested that iiNet prevent its users from infringing copyright through the suspension or termination of accounts of relevant users.
Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops from the fantastic-ruling dept We already covered the basics of the Australian court ruling in favor of iiNet yesterday, but if you read the full ruling you begin to realize what a well reasoned argument the judge made, and hopefully it can become the basis of future rulings on this particular topic.
Michael Geist has highlighted a few sections that do such a great job of explaining why ISPs should never be copyright cops. Basically, he notes that determining whether or not something is infringing is not easy, and requires a sophisticated court, not the random claims of a right holder or the suspicions of some third party: The Court has had to examine a very significant quantity of technical and legal detail over Iinet case decision of pages in this judgment in order to determine whether iiNet users, and how often iiNet users, infringe copyright by use of the BitTorrent system.
The respondent had no such guidance before these proceedings came to be heard. The respondent apparently did not properly understand how the evidence of infringements underlying the AFACT Notices was gathered.
The respondent was understandably reluctant to allege copyright infringement and terminate based on that allegation. However, the reasonableness of terminating subscribers on the basis of non-payment of fees does not dictate that warning and termination on the basis of AFACT Notices was equally reasonable.
Unlike an allegation of copyright infringement, the respondent did not need a third party to provide evidence that its subscribers had not paid their fees before taking action to terminate an account for such reason.
It is highly problematic to conclude that such issues ought to be decided by a party, such as the respondent, rather than a court.
Copyright infringement is not a simple issue. Such problems as identified are not insurmountable, but they do weigh against a finding that the respondent could conclusively decide that infringement had occurred and that it had the relevant power to prevent by warning, suspension or termination of subscriber accounts, even if it had the technical capability to do so.
These arguments are important, though often brushed aside as meaningless by supporters of turning ISPs into copyright cops or expanding the concept of contributory or secondary liability for copyright. Those sorts of things require a sophisticated legal analysis, done in a court -- not by the copyright holder with a demand that the ISP take action.iiNet wins landmark High Court case 23 Apr Intellectual property; On Friday, the High Court handed down its keenly anticipated decision in the long running case between iiNet Limited (an internet service provider) and a consortium of Australian and international film and television studios (known as AFACT).
iiNet did not have any. Unless the decision is reversed on appeal, iiNet and the other ISPs involved in the case will have to hand over the names and physical addresses of their customers. This is not the end of the road.
Rights owners still face a number of difficulties before any individual person can be held liable.
I was also impressed with their customer service so it was an easy decision to go with them. iiNet has the best small business packages – combine that with great customer service – it was a no brainer for us to make the switch,” added Adriano.
Graham Phillips: Yes that's a decision, it's really the landmark case in this copyright area. It went to the High Court and it's really been the main case that's gone to the top level.
'Dallas Buyers Club' wins access to pirates' information in iiNet case. AFACT appealed the decision twice, but both the Federal Court and the High Court of Australia ruled in favour of iiNet. The High Court has published its full judgment for the landmark copyright case between iiNet and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT).