TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Landmark ISP Piracy Liability Court Ruling Due Tomorrow

Tomorrow the Federal Court of Australia will hand down a landmark ruling in the trial between Hollywood-backed anti-piracy group AFACT and ISP iiNet. An earlier ruling by Justice Cowdroy went in iiNet’s favor when he decided that Internet service providers could not be held liable for the activities of their customers. Copyright holders, ISPs and subscribers around the world all have their eyes on this one.

AFACTShould Internet service providers be held responsible if customers use their services to share unauthorized movies, TV shows and music? It’s a question that has been asked dozens of times worldwide during the past several years and one that Australia should be a little closer to having an answer to on Thursday.

Tomorrow, a full bench of the Federal Court of Australia will announce their decision on whether an earlier ruling on the issue should stand or be overturned. The former would mean that ISPs and file-sharing subscribers can cautiously crack open a bottle of bubbly. The latter and opposite outcome is the one favored by the entertainment industries.

The epic legal battle dates back to 2008, when AFACT – the Hollywood-backed Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft – began legal action against ISP iiNet. AFACT claimed that the Perth-based ISP had authorized the copyright infringements of its BitTorrenting subscriber base by failing to stop them from sharing unauthorized material.

AFACT had monitored iiNet users in their allegedly illicit activities and sent corresponding infringement notices to the ISP. When iiNet failed to suspend or terminate customer accounts on the basis of these notices (which were based on untested AFACT-gathered evidence), the fight was on.

After close to a month in court during October and November 2009, with countless documents perused and a parade of witnesses heard, the Court was adjourned. For close to three months both sides had to wait for the decision of Justice Cowdroy.

In early February 2010 his ruling came, but for AFACT and the near three dozen movie and TV show companies supporting it in the case, the news was bad.

Although Justice Cowdroy agreed that the studio’s copyrights had indeed been infringed upon, he decided that iiNet did not authorize the copyright infringing activities of its subscribers and therefore could not be held responsible for their actions.

“It is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement … [iiNet] did not have relevant power to prevent infringements occurring,” Justice Cowdroy said in his judgment.

BitTorrent networks were outside the control of the ISP, Cowdroy said, adding that the ISP was covered under so-called “safe harbor” provisions.

AFACT executive director Neil Gane described the ruling as “a set back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry,” and late February 2010 he announced that AFACT would appeal.

“The court found large scale copyright infringements, that iiNet knew they were
occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them,” Gane said. “In line with previous case law, this would have amounted to authorization of copyright infringement.”

The waiting since last year’s appeal seems to have gone on forever but is set to end tomorrow. Will it be victory for iiNet, ISPs and subscribers everywhere? Or will copyright holders be the ones celebrating? Tune in to find out.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

    “AFACT claimed that the Perth-based ISP had authorized the copyright infringements of its BitTorrenting subscriber base by failing to stop them from sharing unauthorized material.”

    This ^ is exactly the sort of crap that happens when a small but powerful and very rich group of people have their business interests and outdated business model shown to be in the Dark Ages, and they try to get parliaments to pass stupid censorship laws that hold back progress and our freedoms.

    This Court decision is indeed HUGE, and not just for Aussies but for ALL of us Worldwide because it will make case law that can be quoted in Courts all around the World.

    Here’s hoping the Court sees sense and decides sensibly and fairly rather than in favour of a bunch of rich fascists who refuse to modernise with the changes in technology.

    • http://twitter.com/techlooser Tech Looser

      It certainly is huge. I am keeping my fingers crossed. In my opinion the case can swing either way.

      If it does go against the ISPs, it will certainly be a major hit. Where i am from (Pakistan) I dont think it will have much effect, but for the internet community at large it will be very bad news.

      Regrads,
      http://techlooser.com

    • Ninja

      You know, I’d say a few billion ppl would be hoping iiNet wins if they weren’t clueless about this because the outcome can make their online lives much harder.

      I hope AFACT gets a huge spiky defeat up their arrogant arses.

  • Watcher

    Wow, Can’t wait to hear the result.

  • Anon

    I’m sure the ISPs will get off free. Australian law is almost nonexistent for Internet piracy.

  • The Paladin Of Truth

    Hahaha, that crazy ISP iiNet! ;) Hopefully, the verdict of this trial be a favorable on to the Creative Industry, and by extension, the Public. Internet Service Providers have for long the technical capabilities to enforce the copyright laws among their clients by blocking access and means to illegally sharing copyrighted material. Out of fear of losing their customers, however, they have neglected their responsibilities, and the end result is that the Public has to pay for their feet-dragging, so to speak ;).If ISP iiNet is indeed found liable, we can hope future trials against rogue ISPs will be that much easier — the we all can only win and rejoice from such outcome!

    • Hephaestus

      “Internet Service Providers have for long the technical capabilities to enforce the copyright laws among their clients by blocking access and means to illegally sharing copyrighted material.”

      The phone companies now have the technology available to them to listen in on all your phone calls, convert it to text, then forward anything deemed illegal to the authorities. Its the same exact thing.

      If this does go in the favor of the content industry you can look forward to more encryption being used to hide infringing material. Better encryption in more applications. With the tools being available to everyone including terrorists this will make us less secure. So in a way the content industry is supporting terrorism.

      • sherboil

        Kinda like the way you support Hitler, right?.Man you are pathetic.

    • A594031

      Sup troll.

    • Nor

      iiNet won! woohooo!!!!

  • Inpc Kev

    if iiNet lose, they and all other ISPs should just pull the plug on the internet. let’s see then how long it takes before all countries are pleading to have internet connections available again. without it, businesses everywhere would stop instantly. think of the repercussions and the damage to economies. it would be disastrous! the blame should be laid fairly and squarely at the doors of the copyright industries, (and the governments and the courts for backing them instead of forcing them to adapt!). it will never happen, but think what would happen, if it did! the world financial crisis of a couple of years ago would be nothing compared to this!

  • Anonymous

    “‘iiNet had the…technical capacity to stop them…,” Gane said.”

    But do they really? I’m not that tech savvy, but I don’t see how an ISP could stop most infringing activity short of throttling bandwidth way back, which would stop a lot of legitimate internet uses, too. Is there any way to prevent infringing that doesn’t hurt legal uses?

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      No, they don’t, even as far as throttling is concerned, the ISP still needs to be able to inspect the packet data in order to take a stand on how to treat the traffic. Assuming the customer uses an ordinary VPN tunnel, whatever traffic the ISP could even see will be so much gibberish.

      And if the customer isn’t using encryption the ISP would still have to intercept the traffic and analyze it in order to see what was being transferred. Which would net them highly personal info such as bank transfer statements and torrent files alike.

      I.e. No, the ISP can, in practice, no more have a say in what is being transferred than what the regular post office could.

  • This

    HAMMERS ARE USED IN MURDERS
    We need to stop murders so we must stop all hammers being made and sold except to law enforcement

    see substitute the IP for any physical item and you quickly see how bad this is.

    ROADS are used in all kinds a crime so we should hold road makers liable for all there crimes?

  • This

    @Marie417 no there isnt, not one way that works that impedes or blocks legal uses.
    Same as my road and hammer example, its why you can buy a hammer and use a road.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Landmark ISP Piracy Liability Court Ruling Due Tomorrow | TorrentFreak -- Topsy.com

  • This

    Also you law will not be repeated in a minority parliament canada because these twits need votes to get elected and if they consistently show themselves to be awful to people then they will get outted form office.

  • Cavelord

    The problem here is that the ISP is the first cog in the wheel, in order to get a file it probably goes through tons of ISP’s and Backbones. So if the first Point of Presence ISP is guilty, so is all the other companies in the Network that transported the “goods” from Point B to Point A.

    • Violated

      Why would iiNet be more to blame than someone’s home wireless router or any part of the backbone of the Internet?

      All they do is to route data from A* to B* because…

      A* made that data available and B* wanted it.

      All that is happening here is what is happening everywhere. They are all fighting to control the Internet for their own agenda including politics, economics and profit. Welcome to MonopolyNet filled with censorship, spying, rich/poor divide and advertising.

      AFACT want to spy on and censor your connection. Best tell them where to stick it before all companies and governments do.

      No more freedom. No more anonymous.

      • Aussie

        The argument is access vs authorisation. By allowing access to your service, are you also authorising any illegal activity by default?

        Same argument can be argued at the user level. If you own an internet account, and have anyone else in the house, by simply letting them connect through your modem, are you defacto authorising any illegal downloads they might do.

        Its an argument popping up for a lot of defence claims, notably the ACS:Law debacle, and is a solid question to settle. Here, AFACT is claiming that by simply having customers, iiNet is authorising any illegality, if they dont premeditate the action, or cut them off without due process.

        Its what the safe harbour rules are all about – simply allowance is not necessarily authorisation, and the difference between those 2 words in legal terms is huge.

        Justice Cowdrey realised that, and sided with the ISP and that safe harbour rules apply. Hopefully the same decision will be declared tomorrow.

        • Anonymous

          Access versus Authorization may make an interesting topic of discussion but so then is Responsibility and Liability.

          ISPs have not had desire or interest in getting involved in policing copyright infringement when if anything downloading music and movies has been an advertising topic for them in past years. They are aware what their customers want and simply meet their needs in a legal way.

          Then like it or not the copyright side do believe that ISPs should police the connections of their subscribers. When they refuse, not being in the interest of them or their customers, then so does Access versus Authorization become important to judge their Liability.

          These court rulings are not the end of the matter when some countries make it the Responsibility of the ISPs to police these connections. The French Hadopi and the UK’s pending Digital Economy Act would be two examples.

          You may also be able to add in the word Desire when how well can a system work if a service is expected to attack their own customers and potential profit? Just because some people make these ISPs subject to Liability and Responsibility does not mean that they have to do a good job.

          And this is completely overlooking the technical limitations of the whole process when beyond one gateway address no one really knows exactly who did it.

        • Aussie

          Agree fully Violated, was just throwing out the reasons this case went the way of the isp rather than the studios like so many before it did.

          Hadopi hasnt done much (if anything) to stem the flow of downloads in France, and with the ACS:Law decision in England, their Digital Economy Act may be an impotent law, given much of the comments made by the judge in that – namely similar things to what I said about access v authorisation.

          Things might change, and I expect laws to crop up more and more over the next few years changing things. But even then I think its just going to create a divide around the globe.

          I work with legislation daily in my job, and 10 years ago I asked a question about the tax status of subscriptions for online games, and was basically told it was too hard.

          For me, thats one of the key problems around the world. There is no clear and common answer. For every iiNet decision, you have a Tenenbaum penalty to point to. For each safe harbour ruling, theres a Hadopi law lurking somewhere.

          And yeah, lets not get into the technical limitations of the whole process…

  • Violated

    iiNet are sure to win this one again. ISPs simply provide the line connection to the Internet and it is up to the customer how it is used.

    iiNet is not the Police or Censorship service. Copyright infringement is a minor crime akin to a dispute.

    So… Take your dispute to the customer and leave the Australian pipework alone.

    • sherboil

      Sure, no problem.In fact they should sue thousands of those customers.Maybe give them a chance to settle.

      • Jon7272

        sue pensioners and unemployed who have no money makes economic sense for the media giants you trol

        • Aussie

          “Dear AFACT. Thank you for your letter concerning the illegal download of [insert movie here]. Can you please tell me which of the 15 devices within my house that can connect to my network was guilty of the illegal act? I’d be interested to know how my TV managed it, or how my flatmates iPhone or computers can somehow be my responsibility.

          Yours sincerely,

          F. U. Afact”

  • Anonymous

    Good luck looking inside my encrypted packages. You can’t see what i download. And this would be a very dangerous ruling that would put many websites in trouble. It would for example, make Moot responsible for all things on 4chan…

  • gorehound

    well it is stuff like this that for me has
    1.never go to theaters to feed mafiaa
    2.buy only used physical media so mafia gets no money
    3.only buy new tv shows that i want to support somehow so they might not get cancelled

    Down With The MAFIAA !!!!

  • Anonymous

    lol, it will be interesting to see what the biggest kangaroo court of them all does.

    http://www.privacy-resources.at.tc

  • Seanfrances

    Might sound crazy, but while the .torrent sites are up, check out http://www.sams101.com and at least milk them to make some money

  • benni

    well the conclusion will be interesting in the least, on one hand you have afact, a private company who have heard in court that their clients have had their copyright infringed but cannot hold the ISP responsible and on the other the isp with a legal argument (which i agree with ) which essentially is the old argument like (for instance) the highways agency (uk) for drunk drivers….after all they just build and maintain the roads and do not police who uses them… a valid argument, except online infringement is not the same.

    i have followed the progression of copyright or online infringement for a while and if i am honest i am in two minds.

    many times have i downloaded something, hated it, and deleted it thus saving me a pretty penny on going out and buying it, now here lays two problems, 1 if buy a cd dont like it, i can return and exchange it within a reasonable amount of time (even though i could of copied it) and the second more worryingly if i buy a download i do not have the option to return it………even if its not up to the standard advertised….. so

    Many times have i downloaded an album/film and enjoyed it so much where as i feel the contributer deserves to get paid, hence i pay for it….

    unfortunately not everyone thinks like this and is happy to download willy nilly and not pay now im sorry but that is just not fair whether these people get most of their money from live performances as is argued is irrelevant at the end of the day they deserve to paid for their work…….

    the problem lays as is pointed out many times in the model for distribution of copyrighted works….

    where will it end who knows, but persecuting the wrong people will make enemies not allies and the more these industries push for a harder line then the quicker they will learn that ordinary people will not accept this sort of dictatorship which it is in a sense.

    I will not be told what i can or cannot do based on fictional laws and the personal opinions of the entertainment industries, so much so that i would be happy to stop spending my money full stop

    and where does that get anyone

    i hope the court rule with common sense

  • NerfHerder

    Long winded.

    • HerdNerfer

      Short troll.

  • Lordfury007

    I”ve been an iiNet customer for about 4 years now, and apart from their excellent products and services including quota free content and their customer service, the fact that they are standing up for “the little guy” has confirmed my loyalty to them as a customer.

    Recently iiNet have started advertising they are now the 2nd biggest DSL Provider in the country (after “Telstra”, which used to be government owned)

    iiNet has offered time and time again to assist with content distribution via the internet in methods that will both assist their customers and copyright holders – very similar to their “FetchTV” (Quota free On-Demand TV and movies) and also all content from the ABC website (including the last two weeks of shows aired on the ABC Channel) as quota free. I remember after the ruling of the original case that iiNet CEO Michael Malone offered this service again (ie: after the ruling was decided in iiNet’s favour, he offered to assist with digital content distribution)

    If only the entertainment industry worked with a company like this, not against it, then maybe we’d start getting somewhere.

    • sherboil

      They may have aired in the us after 2 weeks but not in Australia.It’s not that simple when it comes to international distribution.for similar reason hulu being us only.

      • Lordfury007

        Maybe it currently isn’t that simple, but what is stopping it from becoming that simple?

        I’m guessing its because of the entertainment industry…

        • Zero

          Because the entertainment industry wants to rape a market dry before moving on to the next region, and nothing is going to change them.

        • Zero

          The worst thing is they make up these magical numbers (1 billion here 1 billion there) to whine about loses to piracy when they clearly factor in people that will never buy the product and therefore no loss has occurred. Do these morons think if they didn’t pirate they’d all suddenly go out and buy things?

        • Aussie

          I’m not so sure its that the numbers are fictional, but more that they are selective. Here in Australia for example, a week or so ago the main group AFACT claimed that piracy costs the industry about $1.5 billion. Fine, it might.

          But what that amount doesnt include is how many people then went on to buy the movie after seeing it. I saw the list of top 10 downloaded movies from last year, and I own the top 9 of them. 10th was Salt, which I havent seen in any way. So if I own those movies, and had downloaded them before buying them, how is it a lost sale?

          I have little doubt they can justify the $1.5b claim. They’d have to, otherwise it would be ripped apart by everyone. But its in their best interests to sensationalise the data to highlight their “plight” as much as they can. If the reality was that the $1.5b in downloads led to $1b in sales, then their issue wouldnt carry anywhere near as much weight.

          Apart from that, I wonder how they survived in the era of tape to tape dubbing, or before that, simply kids sneaking in to cinemas/driveins to watch movies for free.

        • Zero

          Perhaps in the most recent case here with AFACT complaining maybe, however in the past the MPAA and the RIAA have more or less said any/all download/s are lost sales, which is more of what I was referring to.

        • Zero

          Because the entertainment industry wants to rape a market dry before moving on to the next region, and nothing is going to change them.

  • Anon

    Appeal Dismissed at 2:25 thurs!!

    WAHOO!!

    • Jon7272

      true .now the long year wait for the high court appeal

      • Anonymous

        I think AFACT should give up when they have now lost two out of two and going to a third is unlikely to change anything any. Only extra time wasted and increased legal costs.

        Like with other countries their time seems better spent to lobby and bribe politicians to enable new laws to their gain.

        Let us hope they fail there as well.

        • sherboil

          I suppose you could say the same about the piratebay guys.I mean they’re fines only increased after the last appeal.less jail time, but still.

        • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

          As much as I hold your posts in the highest regard, I must beg to differ on this one my friend.

          We NEED the most senior courts in each and every Country Worldwide to closely inspect the evil scam that’s going on with these stupid copywrong laws and decided in FAVOUR of common sense, fairness and a freedom to share for no cash, no profit and no gain without risk of threats or punitive action.

          This decision in Oz is EXTREMELY important and sends a warning shot into the face and wallets of the copywrong lobby to calm down, stop being so fecken hysterical and listen to what their customers and the original artistes want.

          The revolution meanwhile continues with casualties on both sides of this stupid fecken war :( And I’m afraid to say my prediction is there wont be a ceasefire for some years yet.

    • Renwallz
  • Rhandomf

    Denny Fukn Crane!

    Good luck with High Court Appeal AFACT… I hope the High Court Judges slap you bitches silly like the 3 Stooges.

  • Missjanegrey

    here is the court’s judgement in fukk:

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2011/23.html

    • Anonymous

      I was happy to read point 124 which states each BT user is considered to have uploaded the infringing movie only once no matter how long they were connected to the swarm.

      That type of ruling will minimize each BT infringer’s liability and fine.

  • Pingback: Landmark ISP Piracy Liability Court Ruling Due Tomorrow - Torrent Invites - Get your free private torrent tracker invites!

  • Sad

    It is sad that the entertainment industry has resorted to pay people to post fake opinions in this comment section. Sad indeed…

    • Violated

      A pro-copyright view is not unwelcome but just be thankful they have not resorted to using astroturfing yet.

      A dozen bots posting human like views to many forums and backing each other up would be a nightmare.

  • Foff

    Ha ha ha ha stupid copyright fags you lose big time suck on it! What really gets me is the broad assumption that an isp can stop copyright infringement. Who the f is going to pay for that type of censorship. To censor every bit passing through it’s servers an isp would have to employ enormous resources at a huge cost making a connection to the internet unaffordable to almost all.

    I really like the reasoning for the torrent sharing. What it is saying is that there is no way to conclude the amount of infringement from the data presented and/or the collection methods used so it can only be concluded that at most one infringement was made. This is great news because it means that the large judgments that have been handed down in fs cases are in danger if other courts use this reasoning and if the data is collected in the same way.

    I am astounded at the the amount of data collected I hope torrent software developers take note of this and work to make it more secure. Such as better filtering of suspicious peer behavior to limit such monitoring.

  • Null
  • Meh

    Whats next, Smith & Wesson responsible for the crimes committed by their customers? The Ginsu Knife Corporation serving time for a knife-wielding maniac? A Meth-Pipe manufacturer doing 20 years on drug charges? Stay tuned!

  • Foretellerofdoom

    ISP might become something of the past in a not so far future. Without ISP, controlling file sharing will become impossible.

    Someone in a university research lab told me that it is just a matter of time before the entire internet becomes decentralized. I am not en engineer but it has to do with wireless technology where internet access is achieved through some kind of peer 2 peer systems. Currently, the technology in his lab allows for 1 Gbit/sec over 3 Km.

    Apparently the US Army connects it’s tanks that way. Since the battlefield does not always allow for line of sight or even satellite communication, each tank relays data from peers all the way back to the HQ.

    Using a similar technology, internet users could technically have their signal relaid through other users all the way to a communication hub where it would achieve connectivity with the commercial internet.

    The only limitation would be to be within 25 Km of another user. So 10 users could in theory cover a distance of 250 Km wirelessly, making it possible to bring broadband to isolated villages. In larger cities, your signal could be relaid through many users allowing for the fastest route to be used at all times.

    In theory again, this kind of network could eventually do without data centers and even without the entire commercial internet. This might result in numerous independent “internet like networks” that might or might not be bridged together. No throttling, no HADOPI since this system needs to be 100% neutral to work.

    Nobody can stop progress, the dinosaurs will get extinct!

  • Pingback: China Update 26 Feb 2011 from IP Think Tank / ?????????2011?2?26? ??IP Think Tank

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.