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:

how the fuck can this happen?

the select committee removed the draconian section 92 from the amendment to the copyright act and all the "stake holders" agree.

and then, somehow, a supplementary order paper reinserts the fucked-up draconian clause at the *FINAL* reading of the act, and our parliament votes yes, and it becomes law

and then the minister in charge of this sorry episode says how dare we complain! that cabinet had alway intended to include "draconian" in the law.

an election happens, and we get a new government in new zealand.

we protest as loudly as we can, and our new prime minister agrees the law is draconian.

We achieve a delay to the draconian law.

and the ex-minister in charge of this crap law (who is now unemployed and not a member of parliament) says it's "childish" to protest against draconian laws.

and now here we are, 3 weeks out from the draconian section 92A becoming law.

how the fuck does this become the process by which laws are made?

If you listened to recording industry lobbyists, you could be fooled into thinking the artistic and creative citizens of New Zealand are united in wanting Guilt apon Accusation in New Zealand law, and for copyright holders to have the right to take down any website or disconnect any person, business, school, hospital, or institute from the internet without trial, without proof of any crime and no penalty for false accusations.

These laws passed under the Labour government. National voted yes. (greens and maori party voted no). Most went into effect on November 1st - the remainder go into effect on 1st March.

If you're an artist, and don't want draconian laws made in your name, or just want more info on WTF New Zealand government and recording industry lobbyist have unleashed apon New Zealanders, head over to http://creativefreedom.org.nz