iiNet wins court case taken against it by media industry (1 Viewer)

[Slidey]

This case is representative of the ISP industry as a whole and is a pretty landmark case. Basically the judge said ISPs are not responsible for the copyright infringement of their users, do not thave to police such infringement, and that the media industry must pay iiNet court fees. It's an epic win for common sense and freedom in Australia. The judges in America and Europe might be paid off by the media lobbies, but evidently that's not the case here.

INTERNET service provider iiNet has won a major legal battle over whether it should be held responsible for its customers downloading content illegally. The case, against the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, could have had major implications for the way internet providers police their users.

If AFACT had won, providers would likely have been forced to penalise or disconnect users who illegally downloaded copyrighted material such as movies and songs.

However Federal Court judge Justice Dennis Cowdroy today found iiNet was not responsible for the infringements of its users.

"It is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement... (it) did not have relevant power to prevent infringements occurring," Justice Cowdroy said in his judgment.

Justice Cowdroy recommended the application be dismissed and that AFACT pay the court costs.

Film industry loses landmark piracy case | News.com.au

 

[Calculon]

FUCK YEAH

AHAHAHH FUCK YEAHHHHHH

woooohooo yeah iiNet I USE YOU

 

[Rafy]

Absolutely the correct decision. It's not over though, AFACT will appeal this all the way to the high court.

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (includes summary) (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24 (4 February 2010)

 

[Rafy]

Also, Conroy has in the past said he would consider legislating a mandatory 'three strikes' system depending on the outcome of this case. This would force ISPs to warn, suspend, then disconnect users after receiving an infringement notice from copyright holders. ISPs would become the enforcers of other people's copyright.

 

[Bereie]

Meh. Seems appropriate as they are the only ones who can really do it, unless the ISP's allow a system where the media companies can input a user's IP address and get all the user's details then the police can make the arrest+fine.

 

[SnowFox]

Also, Conroy has in the past said he would consider legislating a mandatory 'three strikes' system depending on the outcome of this case. This would force ISPs to warn, suspend, then disconnect users after receiving an infringement notice from copyright holders. ISPs would become the enforcers of other people's copyright.

They already have a similar system, well TPG does. They send emails out if you are caught DLing from blacklisted sites and if you do it enough they will DC you or take your DL quota for the month to deter uers.

 

[naisAtoN]

They already have a similar system, well TPG does. They send emails out if you are caught DLing from blacklisted sites and if you do it enough they will DC you or take your DL quota for the month to deter uers.

What constitutes a 'blacklisted site'? Would someone still be penalised for downloading a LEGAL file from such a site? Unless TPG invidually monitors and sorts through each user's downloads, I don't see how this kind of thing could be totally 'fair' unless the rules on blacklisted sites were extremely relaxed and allowed for the possibility that legal files could also be retrieved from them. If this is the case though, I find myself asking why even bother at all.

I don't think it should be up to the ISPs to do the media industry's policing for them. If, say, someone were to sell pirated movies on the side of a street, the council shouldn't be held responsible just because they maintain the footpath.

 

[SnowFox]

What constitutes a 'blacklisted site'? Would someone still be penalised for downloading a LEGAL file from such a site? Unless TPG invidually monitors and sorts through each user's downloads, I don't see how this kind of thing could be totally 'fair' unless the rules on blacklisted sites were extremely relaxed and allowed for the possibility that legal files could also be retrieved from them. If this is the case though, I find myself asking why even bother at all.

I don't think it should be up to the ISPs to do the media industry's policing for them. If, say, someone were to sell pirated movies on the side of a street, the council shouldn't be held responsible just because they maintain the footpath.

The site is blacklisted if majority of files are pirated.

 

[hosay]

Meh. Seems appropriate as they are the only ones who can really do it, unless the ISP's allow a system where the media companies can input a user's IP address and get all the user's details then the police can make the arrest+fine.

But piracy is good

 

[Bereie]

I doubt that they would do anything based on just the website SnowFox. Can you bring up a specific policy page or something where it says this?

 

[SnowFox]

I doubt that they would do anything based on just the website SnowFox. Can you bring up a specific policy page or something where it says this?

Cant access my freinds TPG email account telling to he was DLing illegal files.

 

[runoutofsleep]

They already have a similar system, well TPG does. They send emails out if you are caught DLing from blacklisted sites and if you do it enough they will DC you or take your DL quota for the month to deter uers.

untrue

 

[Calculon]

It's why I use Usenet *winner*

 

[aussie-boy]

They already have a similar system, well TPG does. They send emails out if you are caught DLing from blacklisted sites and if you do it enough they will DC you or take your DL quota for the month to deter uers.

This isn't how it works

I've seen these emails... they always refer to a specific file

Presumably the private security firms paid to do this kind of work simply look at the download peer list in torrent client software, trace the IPs listed back to ISPs and then send out these emails

Ive never heard of any further consequences... in fact the emails are pretty funny, basically saying your computer has probably been hacked/attacked by spam and to update your security software

TPG isnt dumb, they realise their business is dependent on people who want high quotas

---

I personally think personal downloading of anything should be legal; in any case the decision should be made by us as voters and not forced on us by ruthless media companies based on existing, old, copyright laws

 

[loquasagacious]

It's why I use Usenet *winner*

.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

It's why I use Usenet *winner*

pedophile detected

 

[Slidey]

Absolutely the correct decision. It's not over though, AFACT will appeal this all the way to the high court.

Considering the High Court is probably the next place this will go, and considering the High Court will almost certainly simply decline to take the case, it is pretty much over from a judicial perspective. The judge was extremely meticulous and he maniuplated the media well - it'd be very hard to appeal this.

They'll opt to buy legislation in Parliament instead now, and they said as much - they're going to lobby for changes to copyright law. The Greens will hopyfully shut them down, but this seems like an issue Liberal and Labour would unite over, unfortunately. sigh.

 

[jb_nc]

everyone buy usenet never-expire quota and lol, what they gonna do about it

 

[jb_nc]

It's why I use Usenet *winner*

newzbin is being sued also, though.

and without newzbin usenet is impossible

 

[Rafy]

Considering the High Court is probably the next place this will go

Full Court of the Federal Court.