Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • Australia High Court Sides With ISP in Landmark Copyright Case

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext

Australia High Court Sides With ISP in Landmark Copyright Case

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Friday April 20, 2012
The Australian High Court has issued a landmark ruling that firmly sides with Internet providers over their liability and responsibility for alleged infringement on their networks. The closely watched case involves a lawsuit by the movie industry which claimed that iiNet, an Australian ISP, was liable for authorizing infringement by its subscribers. The unanimous court rejected the movie industry claims, finding that the ISP had no technical or contractual power to act. 

From a technical perspective, the court states:

Whilst the relationship between iiNet and its customers involves the provision of technology, iiNet had no direct technical power at its disposal to prevent a customer from using the BitTorrent system to download the appellants' films on that customer's computer with the result that the appellants' films were made available online in breach of s 86(c)

From a contractual perspective:

Even it if were possible to be satisfied that iiNet's inactivity after receipt of the AFACT notices, and its subsequent media releases, "supported" or "encouraged" its customers to continue to make certain films available online, s 101(1A) (construed with both s 22(6) and s 112E) makes it plain that that would not be enough to make iiNet a secondary infringer.

While the court concludes that ISPs cannot be said to authorize infringement under current law, legislative or industry practices could be used to address the issue. It notes that some approaches may still involve the courts (ie. termination of accounts) and issues of cost sharing. Canada is slated to adopt its own notice-and-notice approach to address these issues as part of Bill C-11.
Comments (4)add comment

Dar said:

A resonable judgement.
ISP's shouldn't be held any more responsible than a telephone company when a customer uses their system for copyright infringement. For example, by way of fax.
April 20, 2012

Newguy said:

Rubbish all of it! When are they going to realize already all this fight on the Internet MPAA/RIAA & GOV. wanting to take control of the Internet is a waste of time and money when it's still not proven movie downloads and music is hurting the industry enough is enough!!! All we are doing is sharing not stealing.
April 20, 2012

Blueclues said:

Canadian Court
I hope the courts rule here that Bill C-11 is unconstitutional.
April 20, 2012

Daryl M said:

This judgement is good news. I'm tired of MPAA/RIAA/CRIA trying to force the government and ISPs to protect their monopolies.
April 21, 2012

Write comment
smaller | bigger

, , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: