iiNet wins! Film industry's case torn to shreds

 

iiNet wins. Case dismissed. AFACT to pay.

View larger image View larger image View larger image

See all pictures here »

The Federal Court of Australia 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. iiNet chief executive Michael Malone estimated that these costs add up to around $4 million.

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

Summarising a 200 page judgement, 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".

"We are delighted with the result and largely just relieved that it is over," he said. "We welcome the outcome. We said from the beginning we did not believe we ever authorised copyright."

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 [video] 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 [see video]. He said the Federal Government cannot stand by and watch Australians infringe copyright "unabated".

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

For live updates and comment click here: iiTrial: Judgement Day (live coverage).

 


"Or perhaps @zag, govt departments like the RTA/VicRoads etc realised they would become responsible for all road deaths and injuries, because they provided a transport infrastructure that they knew ..."
By Ace
 
 
 
Comments: 44
Yertle
Feb 4, 2010 10:30 AM
yay to common sense :)
Jono
Feb 4, 2010 10:36 AM
Congratulations iiNet. This is a good day for Aust. Internet.

I hope those that were against you start eating some of that humble pie now.

so... how does that pie taste anyways Digger? sweet or a little bitter?
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
Feb 4, 2010 10:54 AM
This was the only possible result, in terms of legal precedent. Otherwise ladder manufacturers become directly suable for many spinal injuries (they could reasonably have foreseen that a percentage of users would misuse their technology). Otherwise newspapers could be sued for marriage break-ups and STDs as a result of running private 'get-together' ads. And car manufacturers and highway designers would be suable for ALL road deaths (not just ones where they had direct culpability due to poor design or manufacture).

AFACT were seeking third-party enforcement, which is at least one large step beyond breaching the law yourself. Luckily, sense has prevailed.
meski
Feb 4, 2010 10:57 AM
If AFACT want to go after copyright infringers, they can do it without involving the ISP. Who would they go after next, the backhaul operators?
gerson
Feb 4, 2010 11:00 AM
Common sense 1 : Greedy film and music industry 0

I hope it ends here but i can see many court cases are coming.

I felt sorry for the greedy film and music industry because they haven't EVOLVED along the digital revolutions.

Like the industrial revolution in the 18th century, some people are going to get buried. These greedy and unadaptable industries maybe one of them!!
Mark D
Feb 4, 2010 11:04 AM
Don't fret all. Digger can create an quick script and be Judge Jury and executioner all in one.
longsword
Feb 4, 2010 11:04 AM
Hopefully all ISPs now tell to get stuffed. Will be interesting to see if judgement contains anything re iiNet's assurtion that telco act prevents them passing anything on.
longsword
Feb 4, 2010 11:06 AM
What needs to happen now is a legal way to download tv shows at a reasonable price. I sent a letter to Sony a while ago asking for a way to legally get digital version of the 300+ dvds I have from them and they bascially said no way.
KJ
Feb 4, 2010 11:15 AM
@Mark D
ah yes but where Digger and Maxxi and other pro AFACT commentards went wrong is that it if you actually attempt to understand the laws involved rather than make biased value judgments.

Woo hoo for iinet and an independent judge.
anonymous
Feb 4, 2010 11:16 AM

Yes, a brilliant result, particularly the awarding of costs. It would seem that this may reflect the court's view of the relative merits of the claims.

It also means that iiNet will recoup some, though only some, of the grievous expense which the action imposed on them. Probably nothing will compensate iiNet for the loss of about twelve months of management time which should have been devoted to running the business.

And the mouthpiece for the content corporations is still talking about an appeal. It seems there may be a case for enabling action against entities, which appear to be pursuing legal action to an unreasonable degree, so that they can be made accountable for harassment and commercial losses arising from their action.
Ewok
Feb 4, 2010 11:21 AM
Well said Graeme. The movie industry is trying to retain what is owed to them by way of copyright royalties but are not interested in investing in the enforcement of their own copyright themselves. They were using AFACT to try and facilitate this without having to spend the millions they would require to police it themselves. Absolute cop-out and a farce to boot. I am glad that common sense has prevailed. Congratulations Michael Malone.
Simon900
Feb 4, 2010 11:25 AM
Congratulations to iiNet and all Australian ISP's. It was the only logical conclusion. I'll be interested to see what Digger's comments will be. Strangely quite so far.
marklara
Feb 4, 2010 11:36 AM
Well done to iiNet for backing themselves against this complete time-and-space-wasting activity dealt by all who opposed them…

From the money-grubbing studios that are still stuck in the dark ages, to their lonely & pathetic supporters (like Digger) that are still stuck in dark basements.

Humble pie must never have tasted so bitter. :)
Bourkie
Feb 4, 2010 11:37 AM
Suffer in your jocks AFACT!

As a small means of revenge and retribution, feel free to join me in indefinitely boycotting these companies:

Universal City Studios, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Warner Bros. Entertainment,
Disney Enterprises, Columbia Pictures Industries, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Paramount Home Entertainment, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal Pictures, Village Roadshow Films, Universal Pictures International, Universal City Studios Productions, Dreamworks Films, Warner Bros International Television Distribution Inc, Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment International Corporation, Warner Home Video, Sony Pictures Animation Inc, Universal Studios International, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Warner Bros Entertainment Australia, Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, Seven Network (Operations)
iflowboy
Feb 4, 2010 11:37 AM
Well done Justice Cowdrey, though the decision was inevitable. This case might be remembered more for the issue of how large multi-national corporations can use "bullying" tactics of mounting convoluted and expensive legal action against emerging, smaller businesses as a means of third party enforcement of "their will" in the face of their own incompetence in protecting their own property.
The solution must be for copyright owners to throw their current practices out the window and realise the paradigm shift of how you protect and control distribution of your product in our on-line world. In this instance, all ISP's seem to be wanting to come to the table, but the creators/licencees of the content seem intent on stringently controlling their distribution channels even when they know that such channels are haemorrhaging in light of piracy activities.

Perhaps this verdict has made the horse, by the water, realise it should drink. And to this end, I would say to those members of AFACT - content is essential in the on- line world, but no such guarantee extends to the content providers themselves.
To iiNet, I congratulate the CEO on his courage in standing up for the truth, and against a dillusional claim/plaintiff.
Mitch
Feb 4, 2010 11:40 AM
Brilliant! excellent stuff!
Gee I wonder how ol Digger11 is feeling now!
laman
Feb 4, 2010 11:46 AM
Congratulations iiNet.

I am looking forward for AFACT to sue everyone that are involved with the Internet technology, namely:

Microsoft for the software
Cisco for the networking gears
Telstra and Optus for their connections
Power industry to powering computing machines
LCD manufacturers for showing the content
Chips manufacturers for creating powerful cpus
Film industry for creating the content

For AFACT, everyone of the above is in some ways promoting copyright infringement. Do you agree?
TanyaHall
Feb 4, 2010 11:52 AM
A fantastic result- love how many exclamation marks appeared on everyone's Tweets when the announcement came through!

Wonder if anyone was torrenting from the courtroom?
marklara
Feb 4, 2010 11:55 AM
@Mitch

I'd imagine he'd be reading this (what else would you do to pass the time if you lived in mommys basement??), but not wanting to reply because of the humiliation. Haha!

He'd be seething with anger too - the kind that would make Darth Vader proud.
izevaka
Feb 4, 2010 12:28 PM
I actually didn't expect such smashing victory for iiNet. http://bit.ly/b03XVV Great to see common sense prevail.
ejobrien
Feb 4, 2010 1:09 PM
I can't see how it's a particularly good result for Aust Internet in general. A good result no doubt for iiNet, their staff, shareholders, and customers (particularly those who want to use their insanely large download limits to download illegal movies). For the rest of us though, it's not particularly beneficial.
djcassar
Feb 4, 2010 1:13 PM
While I always agreed that yes iinet could always do more to prevent copywrite theft. I did not believe AFACT had any merits in the law suit against iinet.

As the judge said, just because AFACT "feel" iinet could do more, does not mean iinet MUST adhear to all AFACT's wills.
Ace
Feb 4, 2010 1:14 PM
Unfortunately films like Avatar, which so far has raked in over $2b, only help to fill their 'ridiculous lawsuits' coffers. I wonder if they're still trying to get a percentage of blank CD/DVD sales - which by their reckoning are purchased primarily to make illegal copies of music & movies...?

Anyway, congrats to iiNet, who will never get back all the wasted time.
ITrant
Feb 4, 2010 1:34 PM
This is a sweet victory for common sense and the law - barring appeals.

What's disturbing is the the criminal waste of money by AFACT - their costs, iiNet's costs, the legal system's costs and EVERYONE's time, especially Australian court system already under resourced. Global corporate bullying like this should not be tolerated in our courts. I trust AFACT will be paying everyone's costs??

"Publishers" created copyright laws to line their pockets at the expense of the artists they claim to represent. This case is b.s. DVD sales are at record highs. CD sales declined when NAPSTER was shut down. For more reading, check out http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2726710.htm

I just hope AFACT's costs aren't coming out of the pockets of the 50,000 employees of the Australian film industry AFACT say they represent. As if this had anything to do with Australian filmmakers. More fool them for allowing themselves to be used to prop up global corporate bullying, I suppose.
Slatts
Feb 4, 2010 1:40 PM
Looks like Big Entertainment is going to have to revert to granny bashing.

The big boy ISPs won't settle.
Sams
Feb 4, 2010 2:17 PM
Good to see. An important precedent.
TruthSphere
Feb 4, 2010 2:39 PM
F*** YES!!!!
TruthSphere
Feb 4, 2010 2:47 PM
Digger won't be on here, the legal team would of been sacked ;)
leroy10
Feb 4, 2010 3:09 PM
I just tried to email AFACT to congratulate them on providing me such good entertainment on this day and my email bounced back with the below error.

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 Unrouteable address (state 14).

That's one way to avoid the embarrassment I guess.
firey1
Feb 4, 2010 3:47 PM
Excellent news. :)
PACC
Feb 4, 2010 4:35 PM
If this decision means we "steal" more content from the movie studios then that reduces their income and it naturally follows that they go out of business....who cares. The world would be no worse place without some of the dross that our kids should have to pay $35 to buy. If it means Tom Cruise cant become a half billionaire then, again....who cares. Bring it on. The new movie industry might just produce better balance to the views that it forces upon our kids.
Mordd
Feb 4, 2010 4:49 PM
no comment yet from digger11? how surprising, poor boy must be devastated though, im sure he and AFACT will be having drinks together to console each other.

congrats to iinet, a solid defense and a win for common sense!
anonymous
Feb 4, 2010 6:07 PM

(tongue firmly in cheek) Here, Digger, Digger, Digger. Come and get your medicine.

And the same to Maxxi/skipper/****, etc, and all the other "unsolicited" testimonial writers.

Private Citizen
Feb 4, 2010 6:20 PM
Gee that judge must have eaten a tech manual. AFACT lost in so many ways in this judgement.
I like the definition that if you participate in a torrent swarm then you have made publicly available a "substantial part" but then limits the number of infringements "each [participating] iiNet user ‘electronically transmits’ each film once" [285 - 315].

Whats the damages claim for a single transmission?

Watch Conroy do something stupid (*again*) like try to ban P2P regardless of the legitimate uses of large file transfer.
iflowboy
Feb 4, 2010 6:40 PM
All,

I have seen some late comments that seem to be claiming some victory for piracy/illegal downloading and some scathing attacks against the content creators. These comments are not healthy in this debate and should not cloud commentary on what this victory represents.
This victory represents a simple truth that an Internet Service Provider has no inferred or implied responsibility to control and police the on line activities of its customers. That is it.
What this means for all of us, as internet users is, our democratic rights are preserved for now. If you choose to commit on line copyright piracy, you deserve the weight of the law to be brought to bear on you.
If you use the internet legally you can access and enjoy content in an unfettered way. As far as AFACT are concerned, the realm of our criticism of them should not extend outside of the inappropriateness of their action in filing suit on the basis of an internet service provider having a responsibility to enforce their intellectual property rights as an intermediary. People who use this decision to put forward any other criticisms of AFACTS, are choosing the wrong platform and should not make any connection to this legal case.

If we are going to extend debate on the ramifications of this legal case, it should really be to focus on the next concern which would be what other methods organisations, such as AFACTS, might choose to utilise, in light of this legal decision. Might they pursue government lobbying to force legislative change, or to extend Mr Conroy's current policy formation on content filtering to their advantage. I don't care if they do to protect their copyright, but I care if it compromises our on-line freedom.
Private Citizen
Feb 4, 2010 7:06 PM
@iflowboy, AFACT deserve any serves that they get. In my opinion, they tried to bully a third party into enforcing their property rights without following due process.
I could argue that they left their property in the public arena where anybody could continue to download it, while pursuing a targeted campaign against an ISP and then accused that ISP of causing it damages.
The precedent they were seeking would have been such poor law, that any intermediary would have been responsible for the actions of the end users of their goods/services.
And they said nasty things about people.
CodeSeeker
Feb 4, 2010 9:38 PM
Come on Digger.. show your self.. i like to hear a response don't hide your head in the sandbox
netizen
Feb 4, 2010 10:53 PM
Must admit this was a reasonable quick resolution to AFACT claims, but I think damages should also include loss of revenue and reputation. I agree Graeme it would have really opened the floodgates. The movie industry could find themselves in court for all those copycat murders and suicides. I could sue for addiction to cigarettes and alcohol. I mean they showed me it was cool to do. The thought that someone felt sorry for the greedy film and movie industry makes me wonder just what there about.
axelfoley
Feb 4, 2010 11:48 PM
i think the verdict only proves that illegal distribution of copyrighted media will not stop. if iinet was penalized in some way for their part in this cycle of illegal activity, it would have sent a clear message to ISPs and individuals that something can be done about copyright crime. the verdict shows that the problem will persist because the responsibility can always be diverted elsewhere. i hope that iinet will at least put measures in place to make distribution of copyrighted material more difficult for individuals instead of allowing it to happen because it generates revenue for them. wrong is wrong whichever way you look at it.
Lamby
Feb 5, 2010 12:00 AM
Maybe, just maybe, the AFACT group will stop suing their customers and start listening to them. How about providing a portal for us to actually purchase, at a reasonable price, with no DRM (so we can watch it on our ipad, ipod, pc, media centre, in any country we are in) content that Bittorrent provides - every tv show ever made, instantly, every movie ever made. Itunes shows you there is money to be made.

Please GIVE US A LEGAL MEANS TO BUY THIS STUFF (at a fair price - don't charge more for an mp3 album than you do for a physical CD, don't charge more to download a series of 24 than it costs to buy the DVD pack) and maybe you will will find that you do not have to sue us for copyright infringement (while trying to call it theft)!
zag
Feb 5, 2010 12:02 AM
iiNet won because the Gov wants to become Australia's sole ISP.

If AFACT won then the Australian Gov would have to disconnect people from the NBN once up and running and there would be a major backlash against the Gov rather than the NBN for doing so.

That's why you have Gov depts saying can this court case now.
Sams
Feb 5, 2010 7:47 AM
axelfoley: "wrong is wrong whichever way you look at it"

Sorry, but that's wrong.
Rhino
Feb 5, 2010 1:11 PM
A big thank to the ITNews crew for providing extensive and unbiased commentary on this important issue.
Job well done guys.
Ace
Feb 5, 2010 6:11 PM
Or perhaps @zag, govt departments like the RTA/VicRoads etc realised they would become responsible for all road deaths and injuries, because they provided a transport infrastructure that they knew people would be killed or injured on, and yet did nothing to stop these people killing or injuring themselves or others. Despite this knowledge, they failed to ban cars and trucks (the biggest killers) from using their roads.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
Photos: HTC One vs Samsung Galaxy S4
Android giants battle it out.
 
Project management lessons from the QLD Health payroll inquiry
Analysis: How not to run a major IT project.
 
Review: Asus Fonepad
Calling on the Big Phone.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
To automatically deploy test/dev sandboxes by mid-year.
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Data safe with Human Services, CIO says.
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Technology chief shifts focus from building to leveraging systems.
VicRoads restructures IT team
VicRoads restructures IT team
Department moves to align with industry benchmarks.
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Malaysian staff served from Australian data centres.
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Yarra Valley Water CIO Leigh Berrell accepts his Benchmark Award for Utilities CIO of the Year.
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Domino's Pizza CIO Wayne McMahon accepts his Benchmark Award for Retail CIO of the Year.
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
CIO Jenny Levy discusses how outsourcing will help the firm "simplify, refocus and grow".
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Daniel McCabe, Assistant Secretary of Australia's Department of Defence, provides the audience at the iTnews Data Centre Strategy Summit with a deep dive into the organisation's data centre consolidation program.
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
The full keynote by Facebook data centre architect Marco Magarelli at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit. Magarelli details the design considerations behind the social network's Prineville, Oregon; North Carolina and Luleå, Sweden data centres.
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Telstra general manager of managed data centres Jon Curry guides the audience at the iTnews Australian Data Centre Summit through the build of the telco's Clayton, Victoria data centre.
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
Matthew Clark from the NSW Department of Environment guides facilties managers through the details of the new NABERS data centre energy rating tool at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit.
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
Matthew Clark (NSW Dept of Environment), Greg Boorer (Canberra Data Centres), Glenn Allan (National Australia Bank), Mike Andrea (Strategic Directions) and Bob Sharon (Green Global Consulting) discuss the impact of the NABERS data centre rating.
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Fortescue Metals 'New World of Work" project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss the shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Pacific Aluminium's lightning fast service desk refresh, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Domino's Pizza's shift to hosted services, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss McDonald's Australia's new self-service portal for employees, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss ING Direct's 'Bank in a Box', one of three shortlisted finalists for the banking and finance category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Yarra Valley Water's insourcing project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Utilities category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Latest articles on BIT Latest Articles from BIT
eftpos to trial "mobile wallet"
May 17, 2013
eftpos, the operator of Australia's most widely used debit card system will soon start a mobile ...
New iiNet 4G phone plans include free calls between phones on same account
May 16, 2013
iiNet's new 4G mobile business plans provide free calls between handsets on the same account as ...
Revealed: $1,000+ for Microsoft's Surface Pro in Australia, with keyboard
May 16, 2013
You'll pay more than $1,000 for Microsoft Surface Pro with a keyboard, Microsoft has officially ...
Is this the future of business laptops?
May 15, 2013
The Lenovo ThinkPad Helix is a fully-fledged business laptop running Windows 8 Pro, but detach ...
Federal Budget 2013: So what are you going to be required to pay?
May 15, 2013
Opinion: Want a handy summary of the 2013 federal budget? Here is one by Newcastle accountants ...
Latest Comments
Polls
Do you prefer the Coalition's NBN policy?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 1668

Vote