coffee.geek.nz

The verdict is out in the case of numerous media/entertainment companies versus an ISP over in australia.

The entertainment companies wanted a ruling that an ISP is responsible for the actions of their customers - so they sued an ISP for "allowing copyright infringement to occur".

Now, we can't have that. If someone breaks copyright then they should be responsible for their own actions, not their ISP, not the mail service, not the maker of the fax machine, not the people who built a photo sharing website.

Commonsense prevailed, and the judge ruled in favour of the ISP. The entertainment companies now must pay the ISPs legal costs.

I've picked some of that commonsense from within the judge's ruling:

In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the user of the internet, and the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system; second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement.

On the incorrect use of the word "theft" to describe copyright infringment:

ZDnet story on developements today in the AFACT versus aussie ISP court case. http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/AFACT-bombarded-iiNet-wi...

Cobden [isp's defence lawyer] yesterday worked towards reducing the number of alleged breaches of copyright that had been collected by AFACT's two investigators, which were claimed by AFACT's barrister Tony Bannon to have reached 100,000 instances. Cobden told Justice Cowdroy that BitTorrent file-sharing were often pre-configured to be left open for sharing, meaning that many of the alleged breaches were actually single instances.

What's an ISP to do after recieving 100,000 allegations of coyright infringment? just do what hollwood says & disconnect every customer? All on one accuser's say so?

Or is the ISP supposed to spend the time and money investigating all these accusations as an unpaid copyright police force and justice system?

iinet chose to refer the complaints to the Australian police. - and now they're defending themselves in court for "allowing copyright infringment" to occur.