Australian Court: ISPs are not Copyright Police

February 24, 2011

This is good news or bad news depending on your perspective and if you live in Australia: the Federal Court of Australia dismissed a case this week brought by the movie industry about the role of internet service providers in the fight against copyright infringement. This report on Ars Technica details the drama leading up to the court battle. Lawyers for industry argued that ISPs in the country must take action against file-sharers who are accused of infringement by copyright holders. The case was against ISP iiNet, and was an appeal of the original judgment in the matter, which also went against rightsholders. The appeal was heard by a three-judge panel.

In 2008, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) hired a company to monitor BitTorrent networks for infringement. The company compiled a list of iiNet IP addresses sharing allegedly copyrighted films and then sent the list on to iiNet, with a demand that it take action against subscribers using those IP addresses.

Leroy Parkinson of iiNet responded by telling the company to promptly direct its allegations to 'the appropriate authorities.' He also made note of several entries that didn't make a lot of sense that were included in the spreadsheet.

After several back-and-forth emails, Parkinson basically told AFACT direct his complaint to the proper authorities. Roadshow Films, whose movies were being shared, decided to sue iiNet on the grounds that the ISP was authorizing copyright infringement. After two hearings it seems the courts did not agree with its claims.

iiNet CEO Michael Malone said in a statement after the new ruling that the best defense against copyright infringement for movie companies is more legitimate outlets for content: "We urge the Australian film industry to address the growing demand for studio content to be delivered in a timely and cost effective manner to consumers and we remain eager to work with them to make this material available legitimately," he said.

Electronic Frontiers Australia congratulated iiNet and complimented the company for "putting up a strong defense against copyright owners in a context where—worldwide—Internet companies and legislators have buckled under industry pressure."

You can read an excellent blow-by-blow account of the ruling and the events that led to the court case at Ars Technica.


Comments

Re: Australian Court: ISPs are not Copyright Police

I'd imagine the kind of people who think this is bad news don't spend a lot of time reading GP.  Good job, iiNet.  I always knew Aussies were cool, deep down.  ;)

Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightGamasutra explores the failure of Streetfighter X Tekken and has one of the best arguments against on-disk DLC I have ever read: http://tinyurl.com/d399ylu05/25/2012 - 1:46pm
ddrfr33kabout the xbox live hacks from last year, now we know: http://kotaku.com/5913228/report-how-scammers-are-stealing-xbox-live-accounts-and-what-they-do-with-them05/25/2012 - 12:31pm
tallimarhttp://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57440902-94/microsoft-legal-win-over-google-may-signal-ceasefire/05/24/2012 - 10:17pm
ZippyDSMleeTIme or an operation!05/24/2012 - 6:43pm
ZippyDSMleePC parts are in wish me luck or hell!!05/24/2012 - 6:43pm
MaskedPixelante38 Studios and Big Huge Games are pretty much dead now. http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/24/38-studios-and-big-huge-games-lay-off-entire-staffs05/24/2012 - 4:39pm
DorthLousActually, nop, I did miss the emoticon for some reason (getting used to pics?) and I didn't know you changed it since (since I posted previous to my shout and it was still there.) Anyhow, thanks for taking it out!05/23/2012 - 6:01pm
james_fudgeWell we were just testing it. but it is still on the submission to fight $pam.05/23/2012 - 5:48pm
E. Zachary KnightJames, No I don't have it. I was just wondering who does and why. More curiosity than anything.05/23/2012 - 5:38pm
james_fudgeDid you not see the emoticon and did you not see that it has already been changed back?05/23/2012 - 5:10pm
james_fudgeLOL05/23/2012 - 5:07pm
DorthLousWhy? Not shocked that people are barking to an additional hoop to jump through when posting from their already logged in account or just mentionning this to try to paint me as one always complaining?05/23/2012 - 4:45pm
james_fudgebig shock there ;)05/23/2012 - 4:30pm
DorthLousI'll add my voice to those wanting it gone :S I'm already logged in, I don't need a captch'a. That's for those registering.05/23/2012 - 3:54pm
james_fudgeEt tu EZK?!?05/23/2012 - 3:51pm
Craig R.I'm a One Man Quorum! And it's working for me now, thanks. :)05/23/2012 - 3:48pm
E. Zachary KnightHow do we determine who get's the game/captcha thingy? Is there a certain posting threshhold users have to meet before it is turned off?05/23/2012 - 2:25pm
james_fudgeGive it a chance, we're still adjusting it ;)05/23/2012 - 11:20am
james_fudgeOne does not a Quorum make Craig.05/23/2012 - 11:16am
Craig R.If I complete the stupid game, and it just deletes my comment, what's the point?05/23/2012 - 11:15am

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician