iiTrial: High Court weighs ISP responsibilities


Analysis: What can one internet service provider do?

Just how much notice should an ISP take of alleged breaches of copyright occuring over its network and what can it do to prevent further breaches?

After two-and-a-half days of hearings in Canberra’s imposing High Court room one, this two-part question dominated the proceedings in the Roadshow v iiNet appeal.

The legal issue before the five-judge panel and, indeed in previous Federal Court cases*, is whether an ISP's failure to take any steps to stop infringing conduct, means it authorised the infringements and thus breached the Copyright Act.

Interpreting s101(1A)

Moorhouse is a 1975 High Court decision which found the University of New South Wales authorised infringements made in a library by photocopier users.

While it is the leading case law concerned with authorisation, the five judges in last week's High Court made it clear that the terms of the relevant section of the Copyright Act in s(101)(1A) would be crucial.

Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) counsel Tony Bannon argued, for example, that requirements set down by Federal Court Justice Arthur Emmett were inconsistent with Moorhouse.

Justice Emmett ruled that, in order for iiNet to respond to its notices, AFACT had to offer "clear and unequivocal evidence" of infringements, to indemnify iiNet and reimburse it for reasonable costs.

Bannon also argued that Emmett's ruling was “at odds with a proper application as to what might amount to sanction, approval or countenance and, in particular, countenance.”

Taken from the words "sanction, approve, countenance" are an interpretation of the legal meaning of authorisation, as it is written in Australian law.

GUMMOW J [Justice William Gummow]: …That phrase [sanction, approval or countenance] is not a statutory expression.

MR BANNON: No, quite.

Clarifying AFACT’s requirement

Another recurring issue was the precise order that AFACT sought from the court in relation to the activities it wants halted:

HAYNE J [Justice Kenneth Hayne]: …But what is it you want the ISP to stop doing? I understand that the case has a number of aspects in which you want the ISP to do things. What does it want to stop them doing?

MR BANNON: This answer may have an element of ducking about it, but - - -

HAYNE J: That is what you are paid for, Mr Bannon.

MR BANNON: I hope it is not my best talent…

Later, Justice Hayne established the relief AFACT sought would require that identified account holders take down unauthorised copyright material with the threat that the user’s account may be suspended otherwise.

What can one ISP do?

All five High Court Justices were willing to go beyond a 'black letter law' approach and delve into the technical background in light of widespread copyright infringements over the Internet.

The authorisation provisions of the Copyright Act in s(101)(1A) force consideration of iiNet’s “power to prevent” infringements and “reasonable steps to prevent or avoid” infringements.

HAYNE J: Even the notion of prevent is itself not without some difficulty. One ISP can prevent the use of that ISP’s service to access the Net.


HAYNE J: It cannot prevent a customer seeking or using the services of other ISPs.

AFACT Counsel Tony Bannon argued that other ISPs would take note of the High Court's ruling and would also seek to deter any infringers that continued such practices subsequent to a user's account being terminated.

What types of prevention are available to an ISP?

Judges were keen to explore what reasonable steps were open to iiNet. Bannon made it clear that legal pursuit of individual infringers was prohibitive.

MR BANNON: …The cost benefit analysis of pursuing an individual case against one individual user for downloading three films or three records would be a use of the judicial system which the court would not be wildly enthusiastic about … you will always lose money because you will never get your costs back anyway, that is an inbuilt protection for the users themselves. They know that rights holders cannot track down everybody.

HAYNE J: But it confronts the basic conundrums for the copyright holder. It is the existence of the network of networks, namely the Net, which enables unauthorised sharing of copyright work. The prevention of it ultimately depends upon the individual choice of the user of the Net. You seek to achieve the result through the medium of the company that provides access of the user to the network, and the conundrum is the power that the ISP has, the steps that the ISP can take depend ultimately for their effect on the individual user’s choice, for all that the ISP can do is switch off.

Nevertheless, AFACT counsel argued that having an ISP send copyright infringement notices to users was more efficient than the pursuing users directly through the courts.

Justice Susan Kiefel explored whether iiNet was entitled to consider whether this step is effective:

KIEFEL J: ...What would be the point of asking an internet service provider to send notices which you would say because, as I understood your earlier submission to be, that infringement is rife despite knowing that it is wrong, why is that not relevant? Does it make it a useful step?

MR BANNON: But it is rife in the circumstances where it is impractical for a copyright, for the rights holders, to track down every single computer [user] and sue them.

Justice Susan Crennan sought to float alternative business models at various times in the hearings as a preventative step for AFACT..

CRENNAN J: If you [AFACT] had a royalty arrangement, for arguments sake, where you had regular audits in relation to scale of infringement or something, probably the truth is that users who want to download films would not mind their service charges increasing by a margin in order to do that lawfully. That seems to me to be the very large conundrum that is at the heart of this case.

Later, Justice Crennan explored the option of including this as part of the ISP's warning notice.

CRENNAN J: Maybe it would have been a reasonable step when you [iiNet] got the notices for you to raise the issue of a reasonable royalty which would then be a business cost. I know you cannot compel a party to enter a contract, but that is one thought.

What are the sufficient steps for an ISP to avoid an authorisation breach?

While AFACT counsel argued that ISPs should respond to copyright warnings by forwarding suitable notices to their users, Bannon regarded ISPs disconnecting or “shaping” a user’s account as sufficient punishment:

FRENCH CJ [Chief Justice Robert French]: Is enforcement an element necessary to negative authorisation? If iiNet sent to one of the addressees mentioned in the AFACT notice, having identified the customer, a notice saying “We neither sanction, countenance nor approve your downloading films in which copyright subsists without paying for them” and that reflected its genuine position, is the fact that it does not follow up with enforcement relevant then to authorisation?


FRENCH CJ: Why is that? Is the notice a sham, is it?.. (W)hat is necessary for characterisation of authorisation and I suppose – and what is sufficient to negative it?

MR BANNON: …it has to be considered on a factual basis, and all we can do as a rights owner is say, well, we have given you this notice, you have got those rights, this is what is happening, you have done nothing… whether it is one warning, two warnings, three warnings – is something which this Court cannot engage in...

Counsel for iiNet, Richard Cobden confirmed the end game for rights holders was disconnection.

"It was never a point in issuing warnings only and, we respectfully submit, that read properly we were never asked to issue warnings only," Cobden said.

"Even today when everyone says just issue a warning only it always turns into a warning plus a termination. It was not reasonable for us to embark upon that graduated response given the way the information had been given to us and what we knew about the information".

Was the AFACT argument on authorisation, too narrow?

There was a point toward the end of the proceedings, where Justice Crennan wondered whether AFACT’s case was weak or “narrow”.

CRENNAN J: So your argument is, as you have said in responding to Justice Kiefel, this very narrow argument about continuing to provide the services armed with the knowledge of a past infringement by a particular account in respect of a particular film.

MR BANNON: Yes, but its narrowness is ... its strength because it is a very specific indication of an act which can only be undertaken by them at the point of time in which it is reached, their knowledge, their notice, and in answer to any diffidence about this is the powerful nature of the communication right.

Justice Kiefel revisited the judgment made in the initial Federal Court case that the infringement was made through BitTorrent software, over which iiNet had no direct control.

KIEFEL J: ...In relation to the primary infringement, the position of iiNet is that it enables the infringement to occur but it has, in a physical sense, no means of control over what the customer does in terms of downloading or the use of the [BitTorrent] software; which software they choose, what they do.


KIEFEL J: So the starting point for your case is further down the track and it starts with the notification and the aspect of knowledge and that brings us … into an area where you are saying that we are not so much concerned with authorisation in the Moorhouse sense…”

Justice Kiefel went on to suggest that instead AFACT is arguing for a form of negligence by iiNet in failing to respond in a duty of care.

“We are concerned with a statutory tort which imposes an obligation upon an internet service provider to use what means it has available to it because it has some responsibility or obligation,” Justice Kiefel noted.

*Disclosure: John Hilvert was employed by the Internet Industry Association during the period coinciding with previous copyright judgments.

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

iiTrial: High Court weighs ISP responsibilities
Scales of Justice
Top Stories
Frugality as a service: the Amazon story
Behind the scenes, Amazon Web Services is one lean machine.
Negotiating with the cloud email megavendors
[Blog post] Lessons from Woolworths’ mammoth migration.
Qld govt to move up to 149k staff onto Office 365
Australia's largest deployment, outside of the universities.
Scales of Justice
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins

Latest VideosSee all videos »

The great data centre opportunity on Australia's doorstep
The great data centre opportunity on Australia's doorstep
Scott Noteboom, CEO of LitBit speaking at The Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit 2014 in the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. http://bit.ly/1qpxVfV Scott Noteboom is a data centre engineer who led builds for Apple and Yahoo in the earliest days of the cloud, and who now eyes Asia as the next big opportunity. Read more: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/372482,how-do-we-serve-three-billion-new-internet-users.aspx#ixzz2yNLmMG5C
Interview: Karl Maftoum, CIO, ACMA
Interview: Karl Maftoum, CIO, ACMA
To COTS or not to COTS? iTnews asks Karl Maftoum, CIO of the ACMA, at the CIO Strategy Summit.
Susan Sly: What is the Role of the CIO?
Susan Sly: What is the Role of the CIO?
AEMO chief information officer Susan Sly calls for more collaboration among Australia's technology leaders at the CIO Strategy Summit.
Meet the 2014 Finance CIO of the Year
Meet the 2014 Finance CIO of the Year
Credit Union Australia's David Gee awarded Finance CIO of the Year at the iTnews Benchmark Awards.
Meet the 2014 Retail CIO of the Year
Meet the 2014 Retail CIO of the Year
Damon Rees named Retail CIO of the Year at the iTnews Benchmark Awards for his work at Woolworths.
Robyn Elliott named the 2014 Utilities CIO of the Year
Robyn Elliott named the 2014 Utilities CIO of the Year
Acting Foxtel CIO David Marks accepts an iTnews Benchmark Award on behalf of Robyn Elliott.
Meet the 2014 Industrial CIO of the Year
Meet the 2014 Industrial CIO of the Year
Sanjay Mehta named Industrial CIO of the Year at the iTnews Benchmark Awards for his work at ConocoPhillips.
Meet the 2014 Healthcare CIO of the Year
Meet the 2014 Healthcare CIO of the Year
Greg Wells named Healthcare CIO of the Year at the iTnews Benchmark Awards for his work at NSW Health.
Meet the 2014 Education CIO of the Year
Meet the 2014 Education CIO of the Year
William Confalonieri named Healthcare CIO of the Year at the iTnews Benchmark Awards for his work at Deakin University.
Meet the 2014 Government CIO of the Year
Meet the 2014 Government CIO of the Year
David Johnson named Government CIO of the Year at the iTnews Benchmark Awards for his work at the Queensland Police Service.
Q and A: Coalition Broadband Policy
Q and A: Coalition Broadband Policy
Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott discuss the Coalition's broadband policy with the press.
AFP scalps hacker 'leader' inside Australia's IT ranks.
AFP scalps hacker 'leader' inside Australia's IT ranks.
The Australian Federal Police have arrested a Sydney-based IT security professional for hacking a government website.
NBN Petition Delivered To Turnbull's Office
NBN Petition Delivered To Turnbull's Office
UTS CIO: IT teams of the future
UTS CIO: IT teams of the future
UTS CIO Chrissy Burns talks data.
New UTS Building: the IT within
New UTS Building: the IT within
The IT behind tomorrow's universities.
iTnews' NBN Panel
iTnews' NBN Panel
Is your enterprise NBN-ready?
Introducing iTnews Labs
Introducing iTnews Labs
See a timelapse of the iTnews labs being unboxed, set up and switched on! iTnews will produce independent testing of the latest enterprise software to hit the market after installing a purpose-built test lab in Sydney. Watch the installation of two DL380p servers, two HP StoreVirtual 4330 storage arrays and two HP ProCurve 2920 switches.
The True Cost of BYOD
The True Cost of BYOD
iTnews' Brett Winterford gives attendees of the first 'Touch Tomorrow' event in Brisbane a brief look at his research into enterprise mobility. What are the use cases and how can they be quantified? What price should you expect to pay for securing mobile access to corporate applications? What's coming around the corner?
Ghost clouds
Ghost clouds
ACMA chair Chris Chapman says there is uncertainty over whether certain classes of cloud service providers are caught by regulations.
Was the Snowden leak inevitable?
Was the Snowden leak inevitable?
Privacy experts David Vaile (UNSW Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre) and Craig Scroggie (CEO, NextDC) claim they were not surprised by the Snowden leaks about the NSA's PRISM program.
Latest articles on BIT Latest Articles from BIT
Another phone with Telstra's Blue Tick: The Samsung Galaxy S5
Apr 8, 2014
Samsung's latest flagship phone joins Telstra's list of recommended handsets for customers in ...
Run an online shop? This might be worth bookmarking
Mar 28, 2014
Things like Australian safety standards are probably the last thing on your mind, but just ...
Vodafone switches on 4G in Tasmania: list of locations
Mar 28, 2014
See a list of locations in Tasmania that now have access to 4G via Vodafone's network.
Samsung Galaxy S5 on sale from Telstra next month for $912
Mar 27, 2014
It's not cheap, but if you are looking to upgrade your phone then the Samsung Galaxy S5 could be ...
What Australian workplaces actually rely on tablet computers?
Mar 14, 2014
If you're curious about where tablets are being used at work, here are three examples.
Latest Comments
Which bank is most likely to suffer an RBS-style meltdown?

   |   View results
National Australia Bank