Australian ISP Again Found Not Responsible For Copyright InfringementAdded: Saturday, February 26th, 2011
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
The Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia has dismissed the appeal of the entertainment industry against a last year ruling, where ISP iiNet was found not responsible for copyright infringements committed by its subscribers. ISP’s director Michael Malone welcomed the decision, while the boss of anti-piracy group AFACT, Neil Gane, claimed that it can’t be right that the broadband providers take no responsibility.
AFACT represented almost three dozen of Hollywood and local studios, when it took ISP iiNet to court 3 years ago. A year later, the broadband provider was accused of failing to prevent its subscribers from downloading movies and TV shows. However, a year ago the Federal Court ruled that the ISP wasn’t responsible for their infringing activities. The movie industry appealed the decision, but didn’t succeed.
The Court again agreed that the rights of the plaintiffs had been violated, but still couldn’t find in their favor. However, it seems like even after 2 years of legal battles, this issue is still not over. Despite the fact that the court admitted the issue is quite controversial, the demand by AFACT that the ISP should have sent out mass notifications and suspended subscriber accounts was clearly dismissed.
The court ruling read that iiNet couldn’t reasonably be expected to send notifications, along with terminating any accounts, being told nothing about the ways used to obtain the notices.
As for the boss of iiNet, he was relieved at the outcome, saying that their original contention was upheld. Internet service provider said it never believed it did anything to encourage its subscribers to infringe copyright. The ISP also pointed out that this long-lasting legal battle hasn’t stopped any customer from illegal downloading. iiNet believes that instead of wasting time and money on lawsuits, copyright owners should make their works available legally so consumers can get access to it. As for holding the ISP liable for the activities carried out by its users, it’s up to the government to decide on the extent of liability.
Of course, AFACT was disappointed at the ruling, insisting that the broadband providers have the power to prevent copyright violations, but while admitting the infringements were taking place, they refuse to share the liability to stop them.
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article
February 26th,2011Posted by:
Saturday, February 26th, 2011
|posted by (2011-02-26 15:30:37)|
|Ha ha.. Counter-sue|
|posted by (2011-02-26 22:26:24)|
|I'm still trying to grasp how the hell these morons think an ISP should be liable. It's the same as blaming a manufacturer of kitchen utensils if they were used as a murder weapon...|
|posted by (2011-03-01 01:56:44)|
|iiNet is the second largest ISP in Australia.. they have the money to fight it till the end.. and I hope they do!|
|Unfortunately, its not just IINET under the hammer. As a former DODO customer, I had to change ISP's when DODO sent me an E-mail explaining that I had been flagged as a copyright infringer. Which then had ALL the details of what I had downloaded, when I downloaded it, and which sites were used in the process.|
The E-mail was kindly letting me know that they were monitoring my activity for more infringements and that I should cease immediately. After getting over the shock and anger, I rang DODO and basically was told that TORRENTS were being monitored, and they they had the right to shape the speed if torrents were affecting the system.
And that's why I got flagged for copyright.
Unfortunately by the looks of it its not just IINET getting the squeeze.
Most Popular Stories