Slashdot Mirror
Landmark Ruling Gives Australian ISPs Safe Harbor
omnibit writes "Today, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its ruling in favor of the country's third largest ISP, iiNet. The case was backed by some of the largest media companies, including 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. They accused iiNet of approving piracy by ignoring thousands of infringement notices. Justice Cowdroy said that the 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement' and 'copyright infringement occurred as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet... iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [is] not responsible for BitTorrent system.' Many Internet providers had been concerned that an adverse ruling would have forced themselves to police Internet traffic and comply with the demands of copyright owners without any legislative or judicial oversight."
This case is probably not over yet.
...common sense? But it's Austfailia! This can't be true! Somehow they'll find a way to overturn this I know it.
we still have a proposed Internet Filter, no R18+ rating for video games, and a South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode.
You missed something else we still have. The separation of the administrative/legislative and the judicial arms of government.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Don't expect a sudden rash of common sense to be replicated around the world by judges.
I'm sure there are plenty of judges that will give the "correct" verdict for the media companies for an appropriate "compensation package."
Take Nobody's Word For It.
The important part is what isn't said. The ruling didn't say that there was no obligation to police a certain part of the net for copyright violations, just that the ISP wasn't responsible for BitTorrent and thus wasn't obligated to police that part of the net.
so, "the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another" doesn't meet your definition of that?
Advanced users are users too!
"the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another," - Justice Cowdroy
Ah, reasonable, rational, and direct. Love it.
What got me was that he basically said the only way to get it scrapped was if he was re-elected.
That's some brass balls.
From here in the US, while we've had our problems, it certainly seems like you guys have forgotten the old pledge "We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties."
--
BMO
Just because you're able to copy my file doesn't make me responsible.
Sorry but I suspect the endgame is presented in this http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809856.htm
quote:
Outside court, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director Neil Gane said he was disappointed with the decision. He said the case was lodged to try to protect the livelihoods of the thousands of Australians who work in the television and film industries. Mr Gane said he was confident that the Federal Government would now review the laws surrounding copyright infringement.
as the saying goes, who needs judges and courts when you can afford politicians.
BM3
iNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [is] not responsible for BitTorrent system.
To define it as a system is interesting, when it's really a "society". Bittorrent is simply the protocol of the society of people who wish to acquire media on the internet in a free (not as in beer) manner. If the media companies could provide a way to allow people to pay a reasonable licensing fee by choice for the content they provide then people would use it. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't feel the content is worth what they charge. But the same individuals are also motivated by social pressure to watch the content, pressure that is created by the media advertising. So they make us want the content, but then don't provide it at a reasonable cost. This causes humans to naturally seek the path of least resistance, even if it means bending a few "laws" that are out of date and not really even relevant any more. Media would love to be drug pushers and they really are to a certain extent. Where it breaks down is that they create demand and are unable to provide supply therefore the free market takes over and makes it available. There is only one solution, to stop making the content, or to form a police state that regulates the content for the companies. Neither are a viable solution for anyone. Their profits will plummet in either situation. So what will happen is that there will be more consolidation in the industry, less competition, and only the company that can make content people want for as cheaply as possible will succeed. It looks like iTunes was a pretty good first guess. People will pay $1 for things if it's convenient. I don't see the industry going out of it's way to increase the convenience of acquiring their content so likely they will fold and the people who actually make the content will have to find a new way make it cheaply and get it to the customer.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
"Today's decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry,"
Seeing as our film industry is pretty small + vast majority of piracy is for overseas content (the local content is mostly live TV stuff - sports, news, fluff reality and cooking shows etc. that nobody pirates, you just watch it if its on etc. and if you pirate neighbours then god bless your simple mind) that statement is kinda like sweatshop workers protesting that fake designer gear is depriving them of their 2 bucks a day.
As for iinet, good on them, they're a good isp, shame about the inevitable appeal.