Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

iiNet slays Hollywood in landmark piracy case

ASHER MOSES

February 4, 2010 - 10:06AM

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

The decision had the potential to profoundly impact internet users and the internet industry 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 provides a legitimate communication facility which is 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.

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

This should send a clear message to those hollywood copyright **** that there are parts of the world where they can't just sue who ever they want & always get their way!

Good to see the Judge had some common sense in him unlike stupid ass Conroy with his Nazi internet filter.

This particular battle might have being won, but the long copyright war has just began...

A interesting article I found: LINK

This week the Federal court has thrown out AFACT's case against iiNet, leaving its lawyers all dressed up with no-one to sue. While you can be sure there will be appeals, the copyright police will obviously be looking for a new target. You.
Edited by Mayuri Krab

the other thing was that when they tried that in the US (suing innocent people) there was a huge backlash strangely enough because shock horror it turned out that young kids and grannies were amongst those that were getting sued!

The thing to watch out for is Stephen Conjob Conroy setting up more privacy invading legislation to make it easier for AFACT etc to shaft the endusers.

yes it was a good result. makes me proud to be a iinet customer. and it's not about allowing people to download pirated videos. it's about protecting peoples freedoms and privacy and not turning your ISP into another internet policeman.

We've been discussing this at the office all week.

Being an internet provider, we we're watching it very closely. We get the notifications about illegal downloads now and then, but by law, we don't have to do anything about it. iiNet were doing exactly as we were, following the law. You don't see Holden getting sued everytime one of their cars crash. You don't see the water board getting sued everytime someone drowns in a pool.

Long story short, we provide an internet connecting service, not a child minding service.

We've been discussing this at the office all week.

Being an internet provider, we we're watching it very closely. We get the notifications about illegal downloads now and then, but by law, we don't have to do anything about it. iiNet were doing exactly as we were, following the law. You don't see Holden getting sued everytime one of their cars crash. You don't see the water board getting sued everytime someone drowns in a pool.

Long story short, we provide an internet connecting service, not a child minding service.

a better analogy would be to sue holden for people speeding in its cars

Conroy is an idiot, internet filtering was never and will never be a plausible solution.

its up to parents to tell their kids what not look at / teach them morals.. but after all.. you're a kid so one way or another you're going to see or do what your parents DON'T want you to see.. unless you're a brainwashed slave (yay for religious extremists)

and a big thumbs up to the decision. yay for iinet standing up.! :thumbsup:

the movie industry pretty much makes me boycott buying DVD's now because of all the stupid shit they're doing.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
    • Dort sounds above 3k rpm are dorty 🤣 I might krinkle black the alloy 🤔
×
×
  • Create New...