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:

Over in Australia, that giant group of "movie industry" companies failed to convince the judge of the merit in their case against an ISP for "allowing copyright infringement".    

The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: Gadgets on the Go

Movie studios suing Australian internet provider iiNet have dropped some charges, no longer claiming the ISP directly infringed copyright laws by refusing to disconnect customers downloading pirate movies.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, representing various copyright holders, had accused iiNet of committing "conversion" - directly infringing copyright by interfering with the copyright holders' "rights of possession". The charge was dropped after AFACT lawyers failed to convince Federal Court judge, Justice Dennis Cowdroy, of its merit. The judge has ordered the studios pay iiNet's court costs relating to that claim. 

Whenever this ISP recieved an accusation of copyright infringment, they would pass the matter onwards to the Australian police. The ISP did not wish to become the unpaid copyright police for large movie studios, nor were they qualified for such a job.

The remaining charges revolve around whether iiNet is liable for the actions of its users and their alleged copyright infringement.