ISP iiNet is NOT LIABLE for copyright infringement by users
In a display of complete geekitude today, I delayed going to work this morning in order to attend the Federal Court in Sydney for the judgement in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd et al v iiNet Limited, also known as Hollywood vs. the Internet, also known as The Biggest Internet Case Since Napster and Kazaa That Could Change Your Life. I got there half an hour early, which was fantastic because by the time 9:30am rolled around the court was full of lawyers, reporters, tech guys, to the point that it was literally standing room only.
Justice Cowdroy presided over the matter and delivered his judgement in less than half an hour.
The question: did internet service provider iiNet, by failing to take any steps to stop infringing conduct, authorised the copyright infringement of certain iiNet users.
The answer: iiNet, an internet service provider, did not authorise and therefore is not liable or responsible for copyright infringements that take place over its servers by its users. This is, quite simply, a huge blow for the film industry (and by extension the music industry and content creators in general).
The full judgement can read here. It runs to 636 paragraphs over 200 pages (!!) that I am going to have to work through, however it also includes a handy summary for those who are not lawyers or insane. Highlights from the summary:
"I find that iiNet simply cannot be seen as sanctioning, approving or countenancing copyright infringement. The requisite element of favouring infringement on the evidence simply does not exist. The evidence clearly establishes that iiNet has done no more than provide an internet service to its users. This can be clearly contrasted with the respondents in the Cooper and Kazaa proceedings, in which the respondents intended copyright infringements to occur, and in the circumstances where the website and software respectively were deliberately structured to achieve this result.
The result of this proceeding will disappoint the applicants. The evidence establishes that copyright infringement of the applicants’ films is occurring on a large scale, and I infer that such infringements are occurring worldwide. However, such a fact does not necessitate or compel, and can never necessitate or compel, a finding of authorisation, merely because it is felt that ’something must be done’ to stop the infringements. An ISP such as iiNet provides a legitimate communication facility which is neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright. It is only be means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements are enabled, although it must be recognised that the BitTorrent system can be used for legitimate purposes as well. iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user chooses to make use of that system to bring about copyright infringement."
To add insult to injury, Cowdroy J also ordered that the film studios pay costs. Awaiting appeal in three, two ...
Justice Cowdroy presided over the matter and delivered his judgement in less than half an hour.
The question: did internet service provider iiNet, by failing to take any steps to stop infringing conduct, authorised the copyright infringement of certain iiNet users.
The answer: iiNet, an internet service provider, did not authorise and therefore is not liable or responsible for copyright infringements that take place over its servers by its users. This is, quite simply, a huge blow for the film industry (and by extension the music industry and content creators in general).
The full judgement can read here. It runs to 636 paragraphs over 200 pages (!!) that I am going to have to work through, however it also includes a handy summary for those who are not lawyers or insane. Highlights from the summary:
"I find that iiNet simply cannot be seen as sanctioning, approving or countenancing copyright infringement. The requisite element of favouring infringement on the evidence simply does not exist. The evidence clearly establishes that iiNet has done no more than provide an internet service to its users. This can be clearly contrasted with the respondents in the Cooper and Kazaa proceedings, in which the respondents intended copyright infringements to occur, and in the circumstances where the website and software respectively were deliberately structured to achieve this result.
The result of this proceeding will disappoint the applicants. The evidence establishes that copyright infringement of the applicants’ films is occurring on a large scale, and I infer that such infringements are occurring worldwide. However, such a fact does not necessitate or compel, and can never necessitate or compel, a finding of authorisation, merely because it is felt that ’something must be done’ to stop the infringements. An ISP such as iiNet provides a legitimate communication facility which is neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright. It is only be means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements are enabled, although it must be recognised that the BitTorrent system can be used for legitimate purposes as well. iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user chooses to make use of that system to bring about copyright infringement."
To add insult to injury, Cowdroy J also ordered that the film studios pay costs. Awaiting appeal in three, two ...