iiNet victorious as film industry appeal dismissed

 

Some concessions for film industry.

The Full Bench of the Federal Court has dismissed the film industry's appeal against a February 2010 judgment, which found ISP iiNet had not authorised copyright infringement on its network.

Today in the Federal Court in Sydney, Justice Emmett said that the court agreed with the film industry's assertion that rights holders' copyright had been infringed but disputed the "characterisation of the infringements".

"I have concluded that the appeal should be dismissed; however, it's fair to say that the appellants [AFACT] have been successful [on some grounds], therefore the parties should be heard further," he said.

The parties have been asked to make submissions "as to the costs" of the first instance and the appeal.

Despite the appeal being squashed, the court warned the ISP industry that rights holders might still find an avenue for further action.

"Even though the Copyright Owners are not entitled to the relief claimed in this proceeding, it does not follow that that is an end of the matter," the Judgment said.

"It is clear that the questions raised in the proceeding are ongoing. It does not necessarily follow that there would never be authorisation within the meaning of s[ection] 101 of the Copyright Act by a carriage service provider, where a user of the services provided by the carriage service provider engages in acts of infringement such as those about which complaint is made in this proceeding.

"It does not necessarily follow from the failure of the present proceeding that circumstances could not exist whereby iiNet might in the future be held to have authorised primary acts of infringement on the part of users of the services provided to its customers under its customer service agreements."

The ISP appears to have scraped through on the numbers - with Justices Emmett and Nicholas dismissing the appeal, and Justice Jagot preferring the argument of the film industry.

Background

Representing the Hollywood studios, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) had appealed a Federal Court judgment by Justice Dennis Cowdroy that found iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement activities of users of its network.

Despite winning the original case, iiNet also lodged an appeal in an attempt to tighten up parts of Cowdroy's original ruling that did not land in the ISP's favour.

Click for <i>iTnews</i> complete coverage.
Click for iTnews' complete coverage.

The Full Bench appeal was an important escalation in the high-profile case, but the verdict is unlikely to resolve the battle. It is widely expected that AFACT will lodge a further appeal with the High Court in Canberra. AFACT now have 28 days to file an application seeking leave to appeal to High Court.

Experts believed that content rights holders needed to prove they had exhausted all available legal options before they sought Government intervention on the issue of copyright and internet piracy.

Stay tuned to iTnews for a full analysis of the full bench decision.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


iiNet victorious as film industry appeal dismissed
iiNet CEO Michael Malone (February 2010)
"The judgement was divided so one Judge agreed with AFACT. It is not to be confused with free to air TV, the broadcasting licence is a different issue. The source material for these P2P downloads ..."
By Tom Brown
 
 
 
Comments: 19
maxama
Feb 24, 2011 2:49 PM
Common sense prevails !!! AFACT - Eat your heart out.
myne
Feb 24, 2011 3:12 PM
Good.
The argument was stupid anyway.
Is Australia Post responsible if I post anthrax?
Are they authorising terrorism?
No.
And that's the end of it.
HubertCumberdale
Feb 24, 2011 3:24 PM
Suck eggs AFACT. Also change your name so intelligent people can take you seriously, they are the ones copying stuff without authorisation after all.
laman
Feb 24, 2011 3:30 PM
Are RTA and City Rail responsible for criminal movement?
Are Water and Electricity resposible for keep bad guys alive?
Are their parents responsible for the delivery?
Is God responsible for providing 'air'? Don't forget that God is so powerful that he can limited air to be available to good guys only.
Is Government responsible not killing them and give them another change to commit crime?
Is Intel or AMD responsible for the availability of computing devices?
Are the founders of Ethernet technology, BT protocol, and LCD etc be responsible?
Are the filming industries be responsible for producing films?
If the answer to any of the above question is 'No', then I can't see why iiNet should be responsible either.
Ezy2Confuze
Feb 24, 2011 3:36 PM
The judges had to come to this decision, when this first went to them, even the judges pointed out that what AFACT wanted had to be made law, which mean't that AFACT had to go back to the Federal Government, state their case and have it made law. AFACT wanted iiNet as the ISP to cut off access to their customers. Nowhere in the cirrent laws, does iiNet have a right to do so, otherwise they could be sued by the customer. Only the courts can make that decision, after a case has been brought against the infringing customer and a court order given to iiNet for the termination of their service.
haddrill
Feb 24, 2011 3:52 PM
Common sense and decency prevail over greed, yipee!
Again, what were the profits of the movie industry last year? P2P and traditional methods of movie distributorship can live in harmony.. when will AFACT realise this? It's probably the lawyers pushing these cases who are probably working on commision, so sad.
frogg11
Feb 24, 2011 3:59 PM
Myne and Iaman - great comments.

AFACT, go and crawl back into your cesspit of filthy stinking greed.
grump3
Feb 24, 2011 4:01 PM
It's high time these greedy, monopolistic Fat Cats evolved to keep pace with modern technology & made their wares readily available online at a reasonable price.

If they dumped their restrictive Region Coding, DRM & anti-copy antics so that users had full access to their purchased media they might be much less inclined to expose themselves to the infection risks they incur downloading those non-crippled pirated copies.
RexRox
Feb 24, 2011 4:05 PM
Don't celebrate just yet - the decision and the judgement are two very different things. Emmett's full judgement (haven't read the other two yet) indicates that iiNet barely scraped through as AFACT wasn't complete enough in the notices. If this is the last word on the case, then liability does lie with the ISP but the requirements are more stringent than robot emails but considerably less so than going to the courts.
BrettWinterford
Feb 24, 2011 4:13 PM
You are absolutely right @RexRox - my reading of the judgment (also part way through) spells dire news for those that use BitTorrent - especially if the Government ever introduced Statutory Damages. Stay tuned on this one...
anonymous
Feb 24, 2011 4:36 PM

@Brett, yes, and a government that is itching to impose secret State censorship, and that bows and scrapes at every opportunity to the marketing multinationals, is capable of trying anything.
©commentator
Feb 24, 2011 4:37 PM
Agree with RexRox and BrettWinterford. The court affirmed the principle that an ISP can be liable for authorisation in these circumstances but AFACT just hadn't done enough on this occasion to trigger the liablity. The judgement gives them a template for how to do things in future.
grump3
Feb 24, 2011 4:42 PM
So what's their next target...the TV stations? It's easy to copy a movie from TV & I would suggest most of the population has done so at some time.
Does AFACT next want the broadcasters to block viewing access to all involved in this "criminal activity"
thor
Feb 24, 2011 5:20 PM
wow this is the first time that I seen everybody has been as one with the verdict. I hope that the government doesnt try to full a fast one, but knowing Conroy and his back pocket filed by various organisation to gain favour, anything is possible.
PeterA
Feb 24, 2011 7:02 PM
In a rape trial the 'No means Yes' defense is a hard one to win, so it is only natural the media mafia have form in 'doing over' the truth.

I really hope this is the end of it.
Mordd
Feb 24, 2011 7:31 PM
Well all I can say to AFACT is: "hahahahahahahahahaha".

BTW does Digger11 still post around here, this must be a sad day for him.

Whats next, AFACT suing ppl over time shifting for recording TV on their computer / DVR?

Its time the government changed the legislation to clearly state an ISP cannot authorise this behaviour in the first place, then AFACT would have nothing to sue for.
ITrant
Feb 25, 2011 5:13 AM
Sadly, $14m is nothing to AFACT, but would have meant a great deal to the Australian film industry - as if they had anything to do with that in reality. This is the first shot in a long and pointless war defending a deceased business model, with the general public and our ISPs public infrastructure as canon fodder. This is like suing electricity generators because pirates use electricity. And sadly our courts will always open wide for mighty foreign business to conduct this war, because they are its poodle. Shame.
Johnny
Feb 25, 2011 9:49 AM
AFACT made me vow to never buy movies again.

since the day you initiated court proceedings i haven't bought one movie,song, anything becuase YOU PROFIT FROM IT.

this is the damage that afact has done, they have disgruntled the consumers.
Tom Brown
Feb 25, 2011 11:59 AM
The judgement was divided so one Judge agreed with AFACT.
It is not to be confused with free to air TV, the broadcasting licence is a different issue. The source material for these P2P downloads are not in accordance with any such licence. Also now judgements in the US have closed Lime wire for this very issue.

AFACT is now in a position to win the case.

The judges "findings" are moving AFACTS way and public sentiment has not been focused and is fragmented by childish political sniping.

This is how people or interests with money get their way, chip a little here, a little there until they get the law to see things their way. The community can do the same by letting the legislature know their wish in an even more forceful way but that will not happen here.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australia turns to homegrown drones
Debating the finer points of unmanned aerial vehicle design.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
iiNet CEO Michael Malone (February 2010)
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 514

Vote