The Federal Court has dismissed the film industry's case against iiNet, finding that Australia's No.3 internet provider did not authorise copyright infringement on its network.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft representing the film industry, has been ordered to pay iiNet's costs.

"I find that iiNet simply can't be seen as approving infringement," said Justice Cowdroy.

Justice Cowdroy found iiNet users had infringed copyright by downloading films on BitTorrent, but he found that the number of infringers was far less than alleged by AFACT.

More importantly, Justice Cowdroy said that the "mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement".

"Copyright infringement occured as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet," he said. "iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and not responsible for BitTorrent system."

The fact worldwide piracy was rife "does not necessitate or compel a finding of authorisation, just because it is felt there is something that must be done", he said.

And he found that iiNet was "entitled to safe harbour" provisions because it had a policy on infringement, even if its policy didn't stand up to AFACT's standards.

iiNet CEO Michael Malone told iTnews he was "relieved".

Outside the courtroom, Malone said the case proved that AFACT's approach had "wasted a year" and not been constructive. He intends to now attempt to negotiate with film studios and other rights holders to sell their content legitimately through the ISP's "freezone".

AFACT executive director Neil Gane said outside the court that the film industry is "very disappointed" with the judgement. He said the Federal Government cannot stand by and watch Australian's infringe copyright "unabated".

"AFACT will spend the next few days deciding whether to appeal," he said.

Click to expand...

"AFACT will spend the next few days deciding whether to appeal," he said.

Click to expand...

– Appeals
– Pressure Rudd/Conroy into legislating something.
– Pressure Rudd/Conroy to classify BitTorrent as a Crime, and thus place all instructions and bittorrent sites and torrents as RC.

Click to expand...

evlcookie said:

While awesome, it still doesn't mean a lot. This, a post on whirlpool, could still very well happen.

– Appeals
– Pressure Rudd/Conroy into legislating something.
– Pressure Rudd/Conroy to classify BitTorrent as a Crime, and thus place all instructions and bittorrent sites and torrents as RC.

If that happens, then oh joys!

Click to expand...

"The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another"

Click to expand...

ScientificNinja said:

This verdict honestly came as no surprise to me. I think the judge summed it up the feeling of most legal professionals with this line:




However, Australian regulators are riding an incredible wave of conservatism and fear. I wouldn't put it past politicians to start broadening their views of 'corporate moral responsibility' or associating the Internet with porn and pedophilia. Idiots like Stephen Conroy are already on record as saying "If you don't support the filter, then you're supporting pedophilia".

And here I thought the "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy" dialogue in Revenge of the Sith was ridiculous…

Click to expand...

Wii said:

And George Bush speeches

Click to expand...

Ventron said:

To be fair, the courts =/= the government. I though Stephen Conroy (minister for the interwebs) spoke out against iiNet at one point?

Click to expand...

"I saw iiNet's defence in court under oath ... they had no idea their customers were downloading illegally music or movies. Stunning defence, stunning defence," Senator Conroy said.

"I thought a defence in terms of 'we had no idea' ... belongs in a Yes Minister episode."

Click to expand...