biffon
02-04-2010, 01:06 AM
iiNet wins! Film industry's case torn to shreds
The Federal Court has dismissed the film industry's case against iiNet, (http://www.itnews.com.au/Topic/157347,IINET-vs-AFACT.aspx)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.
Outside the courtroom, iiNet CEO 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 can not stand by and watch Australian's infringe copyright, (unabated) on the copyright of rights holders.
"AFACT will spend the next few day whether to appeal," he said.
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".
The outcome of the AFACT vs iiNet (http://www.computerworld.com.au/tag/AFACT%20v%20iiNet) case in favour of iiNet will have international ramifications according to telco industry analyst, Paul Budde.
Chief among these will be the way in which the case highlights a global need to shift the way copyright law protecting content producers operated.
“The internet is changing the way we utilise media and the way we utilise information and is of great benefit to society, however, we’re stuck with copyright laws that date back to the 17th century,” Budde said.
:whistling::smiley36::smiley36::smiley36::smiley20 ::smiley20::smiley32::smiley32::smiley32::smiley32 ::smiley32::smiley32::smiley32: yay for common sense and boo for greedy film companies!
The Federal Court has dismissed the film industry's case against iiNet, (http://www.itnews.com.au/Topic/157347,IINET-vs-AFACT.aspx)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.
Outside the courtroom, iiNet CEO 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 can not stand by and watch Australian's infringe copyright, (unabated) on the copyright of rights holders.
"AFACT will spend the next few day whether to appeal," he said.
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".
The outcome of the AFACT vs iiNet (http://www.computerworld.com.au/tag/AFACT%20v%20iiNet) case in favour of iiNet will have international ramifications according to telco industry analyst, Paul Budde.
Chief among these will be the way in which the case highlights a global need to shift the way copyright law protecting content producers operated.
“The internet is changing the way we utilise media and the way we utilise information and is of great benefit to society, however, we’re stuck with copyright laws that date back to the 17th century,” Budde said.
:whistling::smiley36::smiley36::smiley36::smiley20 ::smiley20::smiley32::smiley32::smiley32::smiley32 ::smiley32::smiley32::smiley32: yay for common sense and boo for greedy film companies!