What a great day in Australia for truth, freedom, and the ‘not being an idiot’ way.
Those of us (with no lives) who appreciate such things waited with baited breath today for the verdict in the AFACT vs iiNet case from the Federal Court, and I for one was ready to pen some angry words and shout out for a better judgement in an appeal by iiNet.
Fortunately, it seems that common sense can indeed prevail in a court of law, and the Hon. Judge Cowdroy presiding deemed that AFACT’s arguement that iiNet authorised copyright infringement against their clients (most of the film and music industry heavy hitters) was in fact, a crock.
Why is that important? Simply put, it’s a stupid basis for a case. It’s like saying Australia Post is authorizing the sending of ripped cd’s/dvd’s (or sheet music, as one Tweeter parodied), and therefore must be punished, or holding TV and Radio stations accountable for illegally recorded Video Tapes and Mix Tapes. (Brief pause for the collective ‘phew’.)
‘Cowdroy made it clear that the means of infringing the studios’ copyright was the use by iiNet customers of the BitTorrent file-sharing system. “iiNet has no control over BitTorrent,” ‘ ZDnet Australia posted shortly after the trial.
Now, we move on to the drama of awaiting AFACT’s appeal strategy. Will they or won’t they? I’m inclined to think they’ll take a somewhat softer approach, purely in the interest of getting back iiNet’s legal costs (that they were ordered to pay) back. I’m thinking a new case for ‘Gross negligence in monitoring/reporting/acting on reported infringements’
There you go AFACT. I giveth, and I taketh away.
iiNet vs AFACT links:
Judgement in full: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html
#iinet Twitter Search: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=iinet
Note: I am an employee of Telstra. My opinions are my own, and not that of my employer. For the full disclaimer, click here
Humble apologies for the current sloppy outlay of the site – I’m working on it.
If you enjoyed this post, you may also like: