Court rules internet provider not responsible for unauthorised downloads of movies on

[sianon]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/cou...-1225826650849

" A consortium of 34 movie studios, headed by Village Roadshow, had hoped to prove iiNet not only failed to take steps to stop illegal file-sharing by customers but breached copyright itself by storing and transmitting the data through its system.

Justice Dennis Cowdroy has found it is "impossible'' to hold iiNet responsible for what its users have done in the landmark judgment that may secure the future for all internet service providers (ISPs)."

This has been a lenghty battle by iinet who argued that they should not be held repsonsible for what users download and should not be required to terminate a customers service without a court having found the customer guilty of illegal downloads.

[Krystian Galaj]

Finally.

[rcuadro]

No kidding.

[guyanonymous]

This puts a big smile on my face. It'll affect us in the long-term up in Canada, though I don't think it's been as big an issue here.

What a novel idea, requiring a court to make decisions that affect others who disagree, rather than just a company.

Next to go, the DCMA?

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Finally.

my thoughts exactly. it's nice to see that there are still a few people with some common sense left in the world. let's just hope that this sets a precedent for the rest of the world ; lord knows we need it right now.

[wallcraft]

The is an excellent summary on ars technica:

In a definitive defeat for film studios—and in a first case of its kind worldwide—Australia's Federal Court has ruled that ISPs have no obligation to act on copyright infringement notices or to disconnect subscribers after receiving multiple letters. If copyright holders want justice for illegal file-sharing, they need to start by targeting the right people: those who committed the infringement.

As Malone indicated in a December 13, 2008 forum post, the issue should be handled by the relevant authorities; ...

The judge agreed, saying that 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."

[smerrall]

After losing, do they think they may be on the wrong track? Not on your life.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...ml?autostart=1

The music industry says it may have no choice but to sue individuals for illegal file sharing unless the federal government intervenes with a solution to its piracy woes.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by smerrall

After losing, do they think they may be on the wrong track? Not on your life.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...ml?autostart=1

The music industry says it may have no choice but to sue individuals for illegal file sharing unless the federal government intervenes with a solution to its piracy woes.

And why shouldn't they sue individuals? The only argument I can think of is that individuals usually don't have the resources to stand up to the RIAA (or whoever's) lawyers-and that can be where (in the US) the ACLU or EFF can help. Maybe-first we need to find some individuals who are being sued who are actually innocent, and that's pretty hard.

One legislative change I'd like to see made is laying more 'guilt' on those who share the illegal copies than on those who simply download them. I'm not sure if that would mean de-criminalizing downloading or simply establishing different penalties. But this is a decision I'm glad to see as it's been my long-standing contention that if the RIAA, etc wants to stop piracy then they need to go after the pirates-not people who (as an example) created the Internet (or swap meets, or whatever) in which the pirates operate.

[fugazied]

A good analogy is the police suing the postal service because somone sent some illegal drugs via the mail.

Copyright organisations will lean on ANYONE to get money, they are the mafia of the electronic age in a way. They realised a while ago that suing individuals (including grandmothers, children, disabled people) was a bad PR move so moved onto the ISPs.

What they need to do to stop piracy majorly impacting their bottom line is to provide the content online at a reasonable price. iTunes makes it easy to buy TV shows but they DRM the crap out of them which annoys many people. Take the DRM off, make the TV shows reasonable priced and watch the money roll in. It's that simple. Attacking illegal downloaders won't help their cause in the long run.

[smerrall]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

And why shouldn't they sue individuals? The only argument I can think of is that individuals usually don't have the resources to stand up to the RIAA (or whoever's) lawyers-and that can be where (in the US) the ACLU or EFF can help. Maybe-first we need to find some individuals who are being sued who are actually innocent, and that's pretty hard.

One legislative change I'd like to see made is laying more 'guilt' on those who share the illegal copies than on those who simply download them. I'm not sure if that would mean de-criminalizing downloading or simply establishing different penalties. But this is a decision I'm glad to see as it's been my long-standing contention that if the RIAA, etc wants to stop piracy then they need to go after the pirates-not people who (as an example) created the Internet (or swap meets, or whatever) in which the pirates operate.

I don't really have a problem with fining the downloaders. My problem is with the history of the RIAA's bloodthirsty suits and the size of the damages, both claimed and awarded.
Authors and musicians rights to their work needs to be protected as does the publishers',labels' retailers' and consumers. This needs to be done in a balanced way that assists all involved, not just the megacorporations in the middle.

[SensualPoet]

The phone company has never been sued, not once, because their phone system "enabled" some crooks to make plans to carry out a crime. That is the exact analogy with an ISP. The folks in political office and in media companies who believe it is the role of a communications provider -- telephone, cellphone, Internet -- to hand over customer lists and proof of "activity" are not just undemocratic, they are lazy.

Wiretaps are illegal, except in extreme cases, pre-authorised by courts. Holding an ISP accountable for the behaviours of a user is ridiculous. Automotive companies are not held responsible if a driver runs over a pedestrian; Bed and Bath is not sued if someone smothers her spouse with pillow. For once, a court ruled on the side of sanity.

[sabredog]

This is great news indeed and one for total common sense. The presiding judge's statement leaves little room for AFACT to organise an appeal, though there is still a high chance that this will occur. the fact they had to pay costs to the defendant really rubs the fat cat's nose into the whole thing.

I have been a subscriber with iiNet since 1994 when they were operating out of a back room of a suburban house

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Maybe-first we need to find some individuals who are being sued who are actually innocent, and that's pretty hard.

You've got to be kidding. The RIAA has only won a ridiculously small number of these cases. Two that I know of.

The problem with the RIAA lawsuits is that they have no evidence that distribution occurred, and are using their vast resources to either pressure the individuals to give up and settle, or bankrupt them in court. That's not exactly how the justice system is supposed to work.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

One legislative change I'd like to see made is laying more 'guilt' on those who share the illegal copies than on those who simply download them. I'm not sure if that would mean de-criminalizing downloading

Nobody has been sued for downloading.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Nobody has been sued for downloading.

Are you sure? I seem to recall someone in the UK being prosecuted relatively recently - I'll see if I can find the story.