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."

Comments

Suck it, AFACT

[Anonymous Coward]

Suck it long and hard.

Headline should read...

[DigiJunkie]

Landmark Legal Decision - Law and Common Sense Align

Re:Headline should read...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can read the decision for yourself here.

Re:Headline should read...

[blind monkey 3]

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.

It was awesome how thoroughly they won too

[adamkennedy]

What I liked about this ruling was just how much they won it.

The judge said that Safe Harbour provisions did apply to the ISP... but they weren't needed because they only applied if the ISP explicit approved that user activity (which they do not)... and any infringement notices from the studios didn't need to be sent to consumers due to the Privacy Act (iiNet sends all infringement notices to the police instead)... and in any case the sending of infringement notices and subsequent banning etc was not considered a valid copyright prevention mechanism.

So yeah, they wiped the floor with them.

Re:It was awesome how thoroughly they won too

[Incisa]

The salient quote from the judge - "the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another".

Good news, but

[Karsaroth]

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. We have a long way to go yet.

Re:Good news, but

[bcg]

"SOUTH Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson late last night backed down on online media censorship laws.

After stoking a fight with the media less than two months from a state election, Mr Atkinson said the laws stripping anonymity from media blogs would be repealed after the March 20 poll.

"From the feedback we've received through AdelaideNow, the blogging generation believes that the law supported by all MPs and all political parties is unduly restrictive. I have listened," Mr Atkinson said in statement released to the website AdelaideNow.

"I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively."

Mr Atkinson said the law would not be enforced for comments posted during the upcoming election campaign, even though it was technically applicable."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sa-attorney-general-backs-down-on-political-blogging/story-e6frg6nf-1225826154732

Re:Good news, but

[Madsy]

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. We have a long way to go yet.

And banned A-cup breasts from mainstream pornography. Reason? Think-of-the-children mentality again. http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/01/28/australia-bans-small-breasts-as-child-pornography/ I found that both amusing and shocking. It's not about children's safety anymore, but pushing moral values and acting as thought-police.

Re:sigh

[mabinogi]

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?

Re:Prepare for the appeals!

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia doesn't _have_ a Supreme Court, they have a High Court.

We have eight (8) Supreme Courts actually. But yes, you are correct this is the first instance case before a single Judge in the Federal Court. Appeal would usually lie to the Full Court (of the FedCrt) and then to the High Court of Australia.

Re:Sudden outbreak of...

[sconeu]

No need to turn it over. It's Australia. It's already upside-down.

Re:Prepare for the appeals!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you all speak English, but does 'Supreme' mean something different in Australia?

Each state and territory as a Supreme Crt, which is the highest court for that state and territory. The federal court system is separate and deals with federal law (eg. copyright law). The highest court in Australia is the High Court of Australia, to which one can appeal from the state Supreme Crts or from the Federal Crt.

Does that make it any clearer?

Re:Prepare for the appeals!

[Anonymous Coward]

The High Court really only deals with interpretation of the constitution

While this is true of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht, it is completely false in regard to the High Court of Australia. And yes, IAAAL.

Any point of law, whether it arises out if the Constitution or not, can be decided by HCA.

Re:Users only infringe *once* per file

[masher_oz]

So it looks like merely making a file available isn't an infringement. This is congruent with the finding that

20. The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another. The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts. In the circumstances outlined above and discussed in greater detail in my judgment, it is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement.

Just because you're able to copy my file doesn't make me responsible.

Re:Prepare for the appeals!

[grcumb]

The High Court really only deals with interpretation of the constitution

While this is true of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht, it is completely false in regard to the High Court of Australia.

You deserve to be modded up just for spelling Bundesverfassungsgericht correctly.

... And yes, IAAAL.

Now, some of you might conclude that the 3rd 'A' above stands for 'Australian'. Actually, because of issues too complex to explain (something to do with the International Date Line, the Doppler Effect and Special Relativity), Australian vowels simply last longer than North American or European vowels. If you were to pronounce that acronym out loud it would sound more like 'OIEAAAAAAAAOOOHHHHLLLL'.

A clause in the US/Australian Free Trade Agreement requires that Australian actors have their vowels surgically removed when they're being prepared for export.