TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Movie Studios Lose Landmark Case Against Aussie ISP

Australian Internet service provider iiNet has won its court battle against several Hollywood studios. Justice Dennis Cowdroy today announced that iiNet was not responsible for the infringements of its subscribers when they shared copyright material using BitTorrent. The Australian Pirate Party has welcomed the decision.

AFACTThe Federal Court has today ruled in favor of Aussie ISP iiNet following a copyright infringement case instigated by AFACT, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft.

Last year several studios including Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the Seven Network took legal action against iiNet, claiming that the ISP did nothing to stop its customers from sharing copyright media via BitTorrent.

The ISP refuted the claim with a multi-layered defense, which was heard then adjourned in November 2009.

Passing his verdict today, Justice Cowdroy ruled that while the studio’s copyrights had indeed been infringed upon, iiNet did not authorize the copyright infringing activities of its subscribers and therefore the ISP could not be held responsible.

Notably, Justice Cowdroy said that iiNet had no control over BitTorrent networks and the ISP was covered under so-called “safe harbor” provisions.

“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.

AFACT had insisited during the original court case that iiNet should forward copyright infringement warnings to its customers on behalf of AFACT members, but the judge ruled that this was not the way copyright infringements should be handled.

Electronic Frontiers Australia said the outcome of the case was the “application of common sense” and Pirate Party Australia also welcomed the decision.

“This is a good decision by Justice Cowdroy, and reflects that there is no legal basis or obligation for any ISP to act in the interest of copyright holders, or to expect that they should disconnect any entity upon allegation of infringement without judicial oversight and due process,” said Rodney Serkowski, Party Secretary.

“Essentially an ISP should be considered similar to the postal service – they simply carry data in the form of packets, and that communication should be considered private,” he added.

In a statement, iiNet said it had “never supported or encouraged breaches of the law, including infringement of the Copyright Act of the Telecommunications Act,” adding that the company had always been a “good corporate citizen and an even better copyright citizen.”

After the huge distraction of this prolonged legal battle, iiNet said it would now like to get on with business, adding that it looks forward to working with the entertainment industry to make content available legally to reduce illicit file-sharing.

AFACT executive director, Neil Gane, said his group was extremely disappointed with the Court’s ruling.

“Today’s decision is a set back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry,” he said in a statement.

“But we believe this decision was based on a technical finding centered on the Court’s interpretation of the how infringements occur and the ISPs’ ability to control them. We are confident that the Government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network,” he added.

AFACT will have to pay all of iiNet’s substantial legal costs. Thus far, the group has declined to confirm whether it will appeal the Court’s decision.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Aaron

    This is great news. Congratulations iiNet!

  • Ghostofchris

    Great work iiNet!

  • jb

    Great day for Australia, great day for ISP’s.

    Thanks for linking up the article TorrentFreak!

  • flagg1209

    Awesome news. Congratulations to iiNet

  • FUCK YEA BOI

    WOOOOOOOOOOOO
    TAKE THAT FUCKING AFACT

  • Blood

    Best analogy ever

    “Essentially an ISP should be considered similar to the postal service – they simply carry data in the form of packets, and that communication should be considered private,”

    I guess they should destroy our postal service before going after Aussie ISP’s

  • Obedient

    HURRRRRRAYYYY!!!!!!!!
    ……To celebrate I will try the new uTorrent 2.0 ASAP!

  • ytb

    not to use a tried expression, but pwned

  • Bullzeye

    Congrats iiNet!

  • Bubblenuts Gomer

    I raped your sister and shit in your dogs throat.

  • Haha…

    So let’s review this… after failing to sue individual people who can’t afford lawyers and fight back, these guys decide to sue ISPs who have plenty of lawyers and can fight back!

    Who is handling the strategy for these guys?

  • Mr.Afghanistan

    Congratulations iiNET :DDDDD

  • emule

    Congrats to inet and I now have the inet lawyer on my twitter :-).

  • Conroysuggadik

    Quote Australian IT:

    He later explained that in making his decision, that iiNet had no control over the peer-to-peer file sharing system called BitTorrent which was used for illegal file sharing and therefore could not be held liable for its operation…

    Finally a judge who has some sense!

  • Slightly

    Congratulations iiNET, thank you for protecting our privacy and freedom!!

  • Anonymous

    Justice!

  • Hom3r

    good job Australia

  • Arb

    Biggest problem ISP’s have in policing their network is the costs involved in doing it. IT could cost what 10′s of millions or even 100million plus depending on isp size. Those movie studios won’t pay a cent of it but expect the ISP to foot the bill to do all that work. Here’s an idea for movie industry, why don’t you off to foot most that bill maybe they would be more willing to work with ya? Past that holding ISP responsible for what a subscriber does? Why don’t governments start suing Ford, GM, Toyota, etc. cause their cars get used to commit a crime.

  • DeathStalker

    Amazing! A judge that actually couldn’t (or wouldn’t) be bought off! (And showed some common sense!)

    I hope iiNet’s legal costs were WAY up there!

  • Anonymous

    +1 for the internets

  • SirReal

    I really liked the postal analogy, especially the privacy part. A good day indeed.

  • Aussie

    If you want to read the whole 200 page ruling, here it is.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html

    Dont worry, there’s a concise 23 paragraph summary at the top which hits the important points. With luck, this will be the landmark decision the rest of the worlds ISP’s can point to.

    Note in the summary that the judge used international experts, recognising that this is a worldwide issue.

  • Ninja

    Wohoooo!! Way to go! And to close it with a large trout in MAFIAA’s face the ISP invited them to make content more available – which include the pricing..

    Totally owned MAFIAA =D

  • Ad

    “Today’s decision is a set back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry”

    However, it is a massive win for the remaining 22,100,000 Australians.

  • duane

    Nice to see good news every once in a while.

  • Fugasmic

    Of course they are going to appeal, when do they ever not appeal. Should give them time to start bunging a few bribes….erm….sorry….time to offer future fee supported consultation opportunities.

  • Zem Inator

    Awesome!

    Am going to be sticking with iiNet for a whole lot longer now!! Been there since dialup days and will be when FTTN roles out :^)

    I’d love to know what backroom deals had been done with Bigpond and Optus for them not having to face the courts as well….

  • prodigydancer

    And that was the third strike. ;-)

    Sooner or later “de jure” will be on our side too. Worldwide, I mean, not just in Australia. It’s just the inertness of thinking that causes legislators to lag so horribly behind the obvious trend.

    Time is against MAFIAA. Naturally.

  • havoc802

    congratulations, this made my day :)

  • Anonymous

    @27 Bigpond and Optus both have significant investment in Cable/Sattelite TV, It would be shooting themselves in the foot.

  • Jeff

    Funny how our resident trolls go into hiding when there’s a story that doesn’t agree with their viewpoints.

    On another note, I wonder if this win for iiNet will have any bearing on the MPA vs. Newzbin case?

  • Brudda

    Where’s Reasoned Troll? I was looking forward to him whining about how this will set humanity back 4,000 years and how the judge has no morals, and blah blah blah.

    I was disturbed by the LOSERS stating they lost on some small technical issue. They just don’t get it! They lost because they were encroaching on people’s privacy, and trying to force ISPs to be their policeman. Do your own dirty work AFACT!

    I liked this comment about Iinet. “…it looks forward to working with the entertainment industry to make content available legally to reduce illicit file-sharing.”
    Imagine that – making content available legally. If the corporate idiots had done this ten years ago, file sharing wouldn’t be as prevalent as it is now.

  • Anon

    Well done iiNet and their lawyer(s), you’ve made Australia proud.

  • Anonyaussie

    @32 – “Imagine that – making content available legally. If the corporate idiots had done this ten years ago, file sharing wouldn’t be as prevalent as it is now.”

    Exactly. I know it sounds stupid, but if content was LEGALLY available (and easily available) here in Aus, I’d pay for it.

    Right now, that isn’t so.

    For example, I went onto iTunes a few months ago to download some TV eps, you know – give it a whirl. On one show (I forget which, I think it might have been frasier) the only seasons I could download were seasons 2, 5 and 8… the rest were simply not available.

    Now, as someone who wanted to watch the whole thing, I just couldn’t do it.

    So I downloaded it off bitorrent because it was available. Price wasn’t the issue. Licensing was.

    There is something seriously wrong with the system when piracy is easier than paying for something. It should be the other way round I would have thought.

  • Sceptre

    For the People and all the common men and women who make REAL CONTRIBUTIONS to society. A+ Aussie’s!!!

  • DorkyNev

    “Essentially an ISP should be considered similar to the postal service – they simply carry data in the form of packets, and that communication should be considered private,”

    Bingo!

    Well said, Mr Judge. Sound, common sense reasoning.

    “Imagine that – making content available legally. If the corporate idiots had done this ten years ago, file sharing wouldn’t be as prevalent as it is now.”

    Bingo again!

    Got no sympathy for the position the copyright industry find themselves in, they had their chance a decade or so back to get in early and turn the emerging and popular technologies to their advantage, but they deliberately, stupidly, and very arrogantly pissed all over it, again and again and again….

    It would be difficult to come up with a more glaring real-world example of a complete failure of a business model to adapt to changing circumstances in the market place. I can’t believe how badly they have handled this marketplace transition. But there it is, for all to see, a grossly incompetent failure.

    And talk about a PR disaster. They have blown their credibility, especially with the younger generation, lost them forever.

    Fuck ‘em. Time for those bloated crippled dinosaurs to die off, and for newer and more effective and more efficient (and maybe even more ethical) forms of promotion and distribution to rise up and dominate.

  • Reasoned Mound

    Oh this is so sad for the hard working executives and lawyers…er…artists. Everytime you steal a song or movie Jesus murders a puppy and kitten…and my stocks take a plunge…er…an artist goes to bed hungry.

    Oh boo hoo. Pirates bad, iiNet bad…me, media executives/lawyers, copyright, greedy profits good, etc.

    And so on.

  • Reasoned Mind

    Sorry I’m late guys.

    I’d just like to say I’m a big baby and I’m afraid of the government. That’s why I blame pirates for “forcing” the government to control the internet, because pirates are less scary.

  • apprentice

    “We are confident that the Government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network,” he added.”

    Sanity has prevailed on the day but it is too early in the war to start popping champagne corks. Remember the Minister for DEBACLE has already indicated his intention to propose/change legislation if the case went against AFACT.

  • Yatti420

    AFACT loses again.. AFACT FAIL..

  • Raisin Brain

    This is complete BS.

  • Furdhurd

    “There is something seriously wrong with the system when piracy is easier than paying for something. It should be the other way round I would have thought.”
    34 Feb 04, 2010 at 05:29 by Anonyaussie

    ——————-
    Great point made, its kind of bang your head against a fence post CRAZY that this is the situation..

  • Anonymous

    Excellent :)

  • How Funny…

    Congratulations iiNet
    mpaa = greed, corruption, control = fail.

    iiNet = Australians all let us rejoice
    For we are young and free… :0)

  • P3T3R

    Well.. this I didn’t expect. A smart and just result. Either they forgot to pay the judge or he was a real judge believing in what’s right. Something that is very rare these days.

    Well done iiNet, from a long standing customer of yours.

  • Alex

    2010 is looking to be a good year. :)

    *knocks of wood*

  • _______

    http://www.twitter.com/overnetuser

    Telstra and the Government ponder iiNet victory: ISPs applaud the judge’s clarity, Conroy’s response muted. http://bit.ly/9tlqxb

    **videos on links**

    AFACT demands Government curb online piracy: Hollywood needs time to consider an appeal. http://bit.ly/c7Y9MA

    iiNet wins! Film industry’s case torn to shreds: iiNet wins. Case dismissed. AFACT to pay. http://bit.ly/9NHOMS

  • _________

    http://www.twitter.com/overnetuser

    Malone: Time for the film industry to embrace the net: Calls for cooperation rather than litigation. http://bit.ly/d9wxHu

  • josh

    Anyone in Australia, go down to your local payphone, dial 1800 251 996 to AFACT’s hotline and tell them where to stick it :)

  • Matt

    Lmao, this is the best thing i’ve herd all day. I realy hope there was a shit load of court costs!

  • Anonymous

    AFACT lost and that’s a fact!

  • Common Sense

    According to the following site it is estimated around 4 million

    The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), representing the film industry, was ordered to pay iiNet’s costs, estimated at $4 million.

    http://www.itnews.com.au/News/166371,afact-demands-government-curb-online-piracy.aspx

  • Zem Inator

    @30 – forgot about that.

    Interesting though iiNet has their freezone (http://freezone.iinet.net.au/) which has what would be a lot of paid for content …

  • Anonymous

    @42 Exactly right mate, Big congrats to iiNet for cracking some skulls and finally having a real judge understand the importance of not letting the mpaa control the isp like stickmen!

    I think a beer in is order, *cheers*

  • jhc

    FAG

  • Unauthorized Content Consumer

    I think the cherry on the cake was…AFACT has to pay for iiNet’s legal costs. ROFL! xD

  • Mooose

    The whole reason they went about it this way and by targeting iinet was in the hopes of establishing a precedent they could apply to all ISP’s in australia.

    They picked iiNet as they don’t have the legal firepowa of the main isp’s

    Opps looks like they got it wrong…again

  • G Thompson

    The amazing parts of the 200 page ruling has got to be the hilariously written paragraph 70

    70. To use the rather colourful imagery that internet piracy conjures up in a highly imperfect analogy, the file being shared in the swarm is the treasure, the BitTorrent client is the ship, the .torrent file is the treasure map, The Pirate Bay provides treasure maps free of charge and the tracker is the wise old man that needs to be consulted to understand the treasure map.

    (Yes Our Judges have an amazing and very Aussie sense of humour)

    and paragraph 171
    171. As an aside, the Court notes that AFACT, the organisation which the applicants use to aid in enforcement of their copyright, itself blurs the distinction between tortuous copyright infringement and criminal acts involving copyright, as seen in its name: Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft [emphasis added].

    Note: That emphasis is the italicising of the word Theft by the court itself

    Interestingly para171 though obiter could be used to get AFACT to change its name

  • Anon

    Epic Pwnage

  • Anonymous

    This made my day.

    Congratulations to iinet and their lawyers!

    Big win!

  • Brandon

    AFACT MAJOR Fail… Ha ha… Payback iiNets lawyers Ha ha… AFACT onto next Major Fail… Hahahahahahahhahah

    When will they learn…

  • Burp

    The only bad thing is that AFACT will now start to lobby to change the aussie law to ammend the “safe harbor” provisions which won this case…

    I suspect this was their intention all along as this case could never be won because of these provisions

  • ant

    so much good content on the document at austlii, every random bit i read is a win for common sense! hooray!

  • R

    “[b]a person makes each film available online only once,[/b]. through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system.”

    Found this little tidbit in the summary. It alone is worth celebrating, since it significantly reduces the potential damages by limiting it to one infringement per torrent.

  • Silency

    WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO eat shit afact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • omfg

    “Today’s decision is a set back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry,” he said in a statement.

    lol 50k from 20.572.356 people .. lets assume only 20% of those actually have a internet connection (which is actually ridiculous should be WAY more) .. 4.114.472 people and only 10% of those with a internet connection do p2p (which is actually ridiculous should be WAY more) = 411.448 people :-)

  • Pizza

    Congratulations iiNet!!

  • Happy As A Pig In Shit

    Woooo hooo! Well done iiNET! Well done to TF on getting this news out, and a better summary too than the one i read on ninemsn.com.au. I feel like crying i’m so happy. Up yours AFACT! Congratulations Michael and Team! I’d like to go buy that Judge a beer.. infact i wouldn’t be surprised if after he got home from handing down his decicision he went and checked his downloads on utorrent :P~

  • DanielRemains

    AFACT, you fail, and that’s A FACT.

    Do your job by yourself, and don’t ever try to force others (ISPs) to help you. I bring this comment back alive:

    ”Anyone in Australia, go down to your local payphone, dial 1800 251 996 to AFACT’s hotline and tell them where to stick it :)”

    Come on guys enjoy your liberty of speech!

  • Brandon

    AFACT is a joke! They want to make sure that everyone is dumb and not receive information so they can make money ripping off the Artist and the Consumer for their criminal profiteering. They are buncha Goon clowns that are breaking the law. Until we get rid of these old judges and put new younger judges in place this will go on until they fail. Goons fail in the long run. They will NEVER win and be snuffed out by new technology…

  • lol

    poor Afact gets to pay the expenses too, so it’s doubtful they’ll appeal :)

    oh boo-hoo-hoo for them :p

  • REASONED GAY WITH MIND

    Sorry guys was busy(you know having some taboo fun)
    Dont celebrate that much you cheap pirates.You only know how to steal.But wait another lawsuit is coming for them.

  • Brandon

    Yah Reasoned douche dude they are marching on to the next Epic fail… Jeez Close the librarys too they are the biggest copright infringers too and everybody with a library card should do hard time for receiving information sooooo stone age…

  • Think about it

    @ 55 Feb 04, 2010 at 08:38 by G Thompson

    Funny that their insistence in using Raisin Brain’s terminology is a factor in them losing.

  • Charlie

    AFACT just got F-ed in the A.

  • Brandon

    @72 Raison Brain… LMAO…

  • anon2

    glad to see that sense ruled in this case. hard to understand why 50,000? people in the film industry can/should be more important than the millions of other Aussies and other industries as well. as stated above, the opportunity was there 10 years ago to get to grips with this and ‘the industries’ just ignored it. serve them rights! hope the knowledge the judge gained and the sense he used here is relayed world wide too.

  • James Catanzaro

    rott in HELL and BURN, movie industry! Instead of innovating the way you market & distribute your products, you treat your customers like criminals. I will be keeping my entertainment activities away from the movie studios & their products until 2011. You can take my purchases and shave it up your 365!!

  • jovialau

    I am so happy that the words.they will not come!!!!……..Fancy us in Australia having a judge that was not able to be bought off.

  • jovialau

    REASONED GAY WITH MIND…………..now there`s your ultimate contradiction in terms!!!

  • Anonymous

    fuck yeah!, good stuff iiNet

  • Daffy Duck

    Get that dog up ya, AFACT.

  • Guest

    Congrats to iiNet, Australia and in fact everybody who fights against the MAFIAs.

  • Anonymous

    “AFACT will have to pay all of iiNet’s substantial legal costs.”

    Loooooooooooove this sentence.

  • RoestVrijStaal

    The result of this court let us see that Australia is not a second China where everything is controlled by the government and the monopolists.

    Congratulations to the judge, iiNet, the customers of iiNet and the Australian P2P-users :)

  • DefaultUser

    hahaha, eat this bitchezzzzzzz :D

  • DarkStar

    Fantastic news and it doesn’t sound like AFACT have any grounds for an appeal either.

    Common sense from Australia? Whatever next… ;)

  • Anonymous

    “70. To use the rather colourful imagery that internet piracy conjures up in a highly imperfect analogy, the file being shared in the swarm is the treasure, the BitTorrent client is the ship, the .torrent file is the treasure map, The Pirate Bay provides treasure maps free of charge and the tracker is the wise old man that needs to be consulted to understand the treasure map.”

    OMFG I’m laughing my ass off at this. Brilliant.

    Justice Dennis Cowdroy, you sir, rule!

  • kottonface

    This is awesome news…..this has made my day that much better. Yeah for Justice Dennis Cowdroy. Maybe things are going to start making sense in the legal system of the world.

  • desuru

    My favourite is the first sentence of point 19 of the summary judgement! (I put the rest in to rub it in !!!)

    ‘The result of this proceeding will disappoint the applicants. The evidence establishes that copyright infringement of the applicants’ films is occurring on a large scale, and I infer that such infringements are occurring worldwide. However, such fact does not necessitate or compel, and can never necessitate or compel, a finding of authorisation, merely because it is felt that ‘something must be done’ to stop the infringements. An ISP such as iiNet provides a legitimate communication facility which is neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright. It is only by means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements are enabled, although it must be recognised that the BitTorrent system can be used for legitimate purposes as well. iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user chooses to make use of that system to bring about copyright infringement.’

  • dc

    afact has to pay iinets 4$ million legal bill

  • No Wire

    Its really not the place of the studios to attempt to regulate what goes on over public airwaves, dsl, cable or other types of connections.

  • Reasoned Mind

    This is certainly a win for iiNET and I applaud the clarity this decision gives to their service and their service obligations. But this is a pyrrhic win for consumers and we’d be wise to acknowledge the ramifications.

    Infinite duplication is cheap to the point of free, but initial creative costs will only keep growing for the kinds of entertainment we want. Avatar is a very good example. The money has to be recouped from somewhere, and unprofitable businesses of any sort do not continue making product.

    So if the ISP has the legal and protected right to facilitate online infringement and indeed, even literally profit from it through the sale of bandwidth, then either taxes will inevitably be applied by government (not a good thing in my view) or digital products will be written in the future to require dynamic online activation like where UBIsoft products are going. You’ll HAVE TO be online for product verification to use even the simplest digital goods and the costs will be passed on to the consumer, also not a good thing in my view.

    Creative culture cannot survive relentless taking without literally replenishing, too. This will impact because there really is no free sustainable lunch. Simple economics. Think about the children.

  • Inyourface

    @22, thank you for a goodmorning reading chew. I hope you do not mind me repeating you.

    If you want to read the whole 200 page ruling, here it is.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html

  • Inyourface

    Oops

  • Hahahaha

    In your face Reasoned Mind.

  • Hahahaha

    lol @ 95

  • Cole

    @Reasoned Mind

    We gotta fight, fight, fight, fight, fight for this right

    We gotta fight, fight, fight, fight, fight for this right

    We gotta fight, fight, fight, fight, fight for this right

    If it’s worth having it’s worth fighting for

  • one of the 50000

    didnt notice the decline….just thought it was summer holidays
    thanks for standing up for yourself iinet

  • Whatever

    @50000 dissapointed
    Should be about 5000 real artists dissapointed at besides maintaining 45000 parasites like neomind they also waste their money on senseless sueing.

    @55
    Although some other parts may look funnier the best one is still “171″ about the AFACT name you found. That one is hilarious.

    It seems that the judge not only gets the ruling right but also understands a whole lot more. This one actually did his homework. Especially like in a previous comment mentioned:
    “However, such fact does not necessitate or compel, and can never necessitate or compel, a finding of authorisation, merely because it is felt that ‘something must be done’ to stop the infringements”.

  • Whatever

    @95
    Totally unreadable comment.

    You seem confused.

  • Reasoned Mind

    That’s a spoof by someone else posting as me, #101 Whatever.

    My original is at number 91.

    #95 is what passes for intelligence on TF these days. Works for me. lol

    :-)

  • Really?

    @Reasoned Mind

    Did you really say “Think about the children” ?

    Fail.

  • MATT

    aussie movie studios really didn’t think about this. This is a step forward for the 50 thousand employed by the movie industry.

  • Reasoned Mind

    That’s not a spoof by someone else posting as me, #101 Whatever.

    My original is at number 95.

    #91 is what passes for intelligence on TF these days. Works for me. lol

    :-(

  • anon2

    @ Reasoned Mind. the answer has been given here time, after time, after time! take notice, inwardly digest and give the consumer what they want, have suggested and are prepared to pay SENSIBLE money for! end of problems and nob-brains like you that spout nothing but useless, endless fu**ing DRIVEL!!

  • Trelew

    Well what do you know? I guess the corporate suits forgot to pay off the courts to get their “show” trial again….ooops. So again we see how a real trial would reveal the lack of logic that groups like AFACT, MAFIAA, CRIA, RIAA want to spout off about.

  • filmler

    bedava filmler izle http://www.filmler.us

  • Trelew

    The problem with people like Reasoned Mind and Neo Styles is that they won’t see beyond the corporate propaganda they have been paid by the corporations to shill on sites like this. So I pity these poor little guys who been turned into sheep by corporations.

    The sad thing is that despite this win, corporations will still win in the end because they have corrupted governments and courts around the world. So they will get their way, not because it was right and just but because they abused their power over society.

  • Dan

    “Today’s decision is a set back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry,”

    Translation

    “Today’s decision is a set back for our plan to take control of the internet”

    Awwww, i feel for them :(

  • Anonymous

    INB4 IFPI and the gang buys some new laws that renders this verdict null and void…

  • Pingback: === popurls.com === popular today

  • pete

    the aussi-judge said: “mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement”

    quote found there:
    http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/03/awesomely-awesome-au.html#comment-704691

  • Dan

    I thought was reason minded said in post 93 was pretty on the ball…

    “or digital products will be written in the future to require dynamic online activation like where UBIsoft products are going”

    If i was to pay for Tv or Films episodes i would want the option to download or stream online. And any DRM built into the videos would would make the whole service worthless to me.

    So what i want really is just a fair deal – Reasonable prices and control over the media i download.

    I don’t want the files to eventually expire and i don’t want to be forced to use a program like Itunes to view my media.

    I think bit-torrent is doing a better job at giving me what i want than the entertainment industry ever could!

  • netspace_consumer

    The Hon. Justice Dennis Antill COWDROY OAM

    Was that the judge who was appointed this case?

  • netspace_consumer

    Yes, it sure is.

    The Hon. Justice D Cowdroy OAM
    Tel: (02) 9230 8567; Fax: (02) 9230 8535

    as listed in the “a guide to the Australian government”, dated October 2009

  • blarg

    should be noted that that number is associated to the Law Courts Building, Queens Sq, Sydney NSW 2000

  • Scooby

    WIN!

  • M-RES

    @ Trelew

    Au contraire! The corporations will NOT get their own way, because the horse has bolted. They will never again be able to control the content they once could.

    They may THINK they can find new ways to control it, but it’ll only spur people to find new ways to bypass that control. Remember, the bypass only has to be found once for that particular control method to be forever broken.

    Remember, each new method will see a new bypass found.

    They’re playing catch-up with people who are often more technically adept than they are. Or at the very least people who are far more numerous than they. It costs a LOT of money to implement a whole new security schema across an entire industry/format/distribution method, but it’s free for people in their spare time to break that control. It’s been said many times that you can’t compete with free, but in this particular case it is even more poignant a statement.

    The truth is though, that the more control the industry majors try to place on the content of their paying customers, the more customers they’ll lose as they DRIVE people to piracy to avoid the inconvenience of the latest and greatest hoop-jumping exercise.

    If they try to force people to be online to view content, then it’s an inconvenience for many people, and they’ll actively BECOME pirates where they weren’t previously, just to have the ability to watch movies they BOUGHT offline the way they prefer.

    Nothing positive ever comes of collective punishment to dragnet a few ‘offenders’, especially not when the people you punish are your paying customers! LOL

    But you’re certainly right about Raisined Neomind Styles being shill(s).

  • Reasoned Mind

    Remarks made recently by USA President Obama,

    “THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is a great question, and this is a huge problem. (Applause.) Look, our competitive advantage in the world is going to be people like this who are using their minds to create new products, new services. But that only helps us and helps you build a multibillion-dollar company if somebody can’t just steal that idea……….

    …………and one of the problems that we have had is insufficient protection for intellectual property rights. That’s true in China; it’s true for everything from bootleg DVDs to very sophisticated software. And
    there’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies. We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.

    So I’ve given instructions to my trade offices — and we actually highlight this at the highest levels of foreign policy — that these are issues that have to be addressed because that’s part of the reciprocity of making our markets open. ”

    Behold, the ACTA.
    (wild applause)

  • neostyles

    Are they blind? When custemors are using their services to defraud copyright holders, why should they remain anonymous?

  • Recton Kracke

    Good one Australian justice. A precedent has been set.
    Congratulations iinet.

    {wild applause)

  • yes

    another WIN for pirates, take that ya corp scum

  • duane

    @Brainwashed Mind

    So, your president wants to exert control over developing economies. As long as IP is regulated by America, it’ll be the leader and the rest of the world the followers.

    Like book-burning in the Middle ages. As long as the lower classes can’t have access to books and knowledge, they’ll be slaves to the elite few.

    Guess what: You can subjugate some countries this way, but you’re only weakening your allies. I don’t see China signing up! So, fuck that.

  • Pete

    Good :-)

  • lol

    Reasoned for once you made sense.. but you have basically admitted to us being right, what you refuse to make the bridge though is that..

    WE.NEED.>GOOD<.LEGAL.ALTERNATIVES.

    NOT some BS where theres 4 episodes and 2 clips.. not some BS where its available in USA but no anywhere else..

    NOT.F*CKING.BS. Dont give a F*CK ABOUT RESTRICTIONS.

    Make it happen, or bittorrent. Dont give a sh*t if it 'hurts people' or whatever bs you come up with..

    ITS THEIR FAULT. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

    IT.IS.THEIR.FAULT.

  • Raisin Brain

    This can’t be happening! This is complete and utter bs.

  • Reasoned Mind

    #123 lol, consider this then…..

    Whether they are offering an apple for sale and you take the apple without paying for it….

    or whether they are offering a movie for sale and you make a copy and enjoy the copy without paying for it,

    either way:
    1. You got their product
    2. they didn’t get paid.

    One is theft.
    the other, infringement.

    But the bottom line remains exactly the same for them.

    So it’s going to be hard to expect them to accept that you taking their product without paying their price is “their fault.”

    I don’t think you’d accept it either if your boss could take your work, not pay you, and blame it all on you.

    I’m just sayin’. And i think I’m being very realistic.

  • Recton Kracke

    According to worldwide box office totals, the top five are:

    1. Avatar (2009) $1,839,741,499
    2. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
    3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252
    4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest(2006) $1,060,332,628
    5. The Dark Knight (2008) $1,001,921,825

    Enjoy them while you can because according to Reasoned Mind they will have to stop making these kind of films. They’re unprofitable. Oh and its because of ‘piracy’.

  • duane

    @126

    The alternative is:
    1. You didn’t get their product
    2. they didn’t get paid.

    The bottom line is the same, except this way you aren’t even likely to be converted into a paying customer.

    Do you think restraining access to media will get them more customers? I’m just sayin’ that’s completely myopic, and I think I’m being very realistic.

  • Reasoned Mind

    That’s the opposite of what I said. Blockbusters will continue because they make money. Many of the other films will not be made anymore, though, because although they are good films and people enjoy them, piracy overwhelms their modest returns, eliminating a return on investment. It’s the truth.

    You’re an ass.
    oh wait.
    It’s not your fault.
    you’re Recton Kracke.

    lol

  • Reasoned Mind

    “The bottom line is the same, except this way you aren’t even likely to be converted into a paying customer.”

    That was true ten years ago. There are hundreds of ways to pay for legal product online but piracy continues. It’s the best evidence that this was never about converting to paid and it was never about free speech. It was always about stealing free shit.

    And it still is.

    The natural economics just means less and less to steal in the future. less product, fewer motion pictures.

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of digital thieves.
    Eventually, you DO get only what you pay for.
    :-)

  • Cujo

    Summary:

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html

    thats sockin it to those corperate flunkies

    and they get ta pay the bill ;)

  • Reasoned Mind

    “The bottom line is the same, except this way you aren’t even likely to be converted into a paying customer.”

    That wasn’t true ten years ago. There are hundreds of ways to pay for illegal product offline but piracy doesn’t continues. It’s the best evidence that this was about converting to paid and it was about free speech. It was always about paying free shit.

    And it still is.

    The natural economics just means more and more to pay in the future. more product, more motion pictures.

    Could happen to a nicer bunch of digital geeks.
    Eventually, you DO NOT get only what you pay for.
    :-)

  • Reasoned Mind

    That’s the exactly what I said. Blockbusters will continue because they make money. Many of the other films will be made more, though, because although they are good films and people enjoy them, piracy doesn’t overwhelms their modest returns, eliminating a return on investment. It’s the truth.

    You’re not an ass.
    oh wait.
    It’s your fault.
    you’re NOT Recton Kracke.

    lol

  • duane

    “There are hundreds of ways to pay for legal product online”
    In your country, perhaps. Or in your world.

    “It was always about stealing free shit.”
    Maybe that’s your motivation, but studies keep telling us that filesharers are also the best customers. On TF we keep hearing people say “I downloaded it, liked it and that’s why I’m buying it”. That’s simply your opinion and ignores all the facts (either intentionally or through sheer stupidity).

    “The natural economics just means less and less to steal in the future. less product, fewer motion pictures.”

    No, it means that
    a) people who make movies will need to be more cost efficient. Even the lamest movie today has a budget around $100m, and that’s unjustified.

    b) prices will need to drop to a reasonable level and we’ll move on to internet distribution, as should have happened several years ago.

    c) shills like yourself will be out of a job, because of (a).

  • Jet

    “I find that the mere provision of access to the internet is not the ‘means’ of infringement,”
    AT LAST AN INFORMED JUDGE.

  • K

    Here is the thing though Reasoned mind, the flaw in your argument. If I download it, I wasn’t going to pay for it anyway. I don’t think it is going to be worth my dollars, so if paying for it was the only alternative I wouldn’t watch it and the studios STILL dont get my money. Of course I do pay for some things, I do go and see some movees at the cinema – at least a half dozen over the last year. Movies that I thought were going to be worth my dollar. The same goes with music.

  • ROLF

    yeah!

    “AFACT will have to pay all of iiNet’s substantial legal costs.”

    really nice! :)

  • Anonymous

    Whoo! Congratulations to iiNet! I was rooting for them all along. It’s great to see a sensible judge not immediately cowering in the corner at the words “computer” and “file-sharing”.

    This really was a common sense verdict. iiNet is NOT responsible for the actions of its customers, and it’s unreasonable to expect iiNet to police its service. That’s like saying oil companies should be held accountable for the gas they provide for people who commit drive-by shootings, or charging whetstone companies for helping axe murderers sharpen their axes.

    Anyway, this is an amazing victory for common sense, decency, and justice! It’s helped me regain some of my confidence that we can defeat moronic groups like AFACT and the MAFIAA. They’re goin’ down.

  • Recton Kracke

    @ 130 Reasoned Mind

    No; you said.

    #93 “Infinite duplication is cheap to the point of free, but initial creative costs will only keep growing for the kinds of entertainment we want. Avatar is a very good example. The money has to be recouped from somewhere, and unprofitable businesses of any sort do not continue making product.”

    Forgive me if I took that out of context but to me it reads, Avatar = unprofitable.

    I can’t just let that kind of perceived falsehood just slip by.

  • Reasoned Mind

    My apologies, Recton, Avatar is hugely profitable, we all know this, let me restate to clarify.

    “Avatar is a very good example of creative costs continuing to grow for the kinds of entertainment we want. The money has to be recouped from somewhere…..”

    I hope that’s clearer. No falsehood. I think it’s also true that in a hypothetical case, had piracy gutted Avatar’s commercial viability and the movies failed to gross, say, more than $40 or $50 million through sheer unlawful infringement, I think it’s likely no more movies on the scale of Avatar would be made until we return to paying for the movies we watch again. They can’t keep making them if we don’t keep paying for them somehow. Y’know?

  • Aussie

    @Reasoned mind. You’re right, they cant keep making movies if we dont keep throwing money at them.

    A couple of things though. Firstly, I’m sure you’re well aware that the movie industry broke all records last financial year, making over $10 billion dollars in the US alone. Hardly a situation where they are struggling. Not many of those movies cost more than $50 million to make.

    Secondly, I’m wondering how this parallels with kids sneaking into cinemas in decades past. They didnt pay to see a movie, getting it for free, yet its glorified in plenty of movies, where you see one kid distract an usher while 20 sneak in, or 4 or 5 people hid in the boot of a car.

    The industry has had to deal with freeloaders pretty much since movies started. This isnt much different, yet now the reaction is to use a steamroller to crush ants.

    This isnt JUST about whether someone has breached copyright, its about much more – privacy laws for starters. It’s also about jurisdiction – where did MIAA/AFACT get the legal right to prosecute without trial?

    In case you care, my movie collection is currently valued at $20,000. Is that the collection of a pirate?

    @the rest – glad you all liked the link, it was a fun read. Also, AFACT should change their name to the Australian Federation Against Royalty & Copyright Evasion.

  • AnonGuy

    Hopefully the popularity of piracy and the industry trying to imprison the people who actually like their garbage, will finally bring about the end of Hollywood and their “important artists”. Good riddance.

    It doesn’t matter if things like ACTA become law or not, it’s the thought that counts. The industry hates YOU, just read one of those FBI warnings.

  • Diss

    Gee Reasoned Mind is pretty active today, desperate much? Filesharing is growing, the younger generation grew up with it, these are our future politicians and law-makers. what do you think is going to happen??

    By the way – Home taping is killing the music industry…

  • Matt

    Sooooo……

    If my friend buys a dvd movie, and i go to his house and watch it, am i stealing? should i have bought my own copy aswell?

  • Kiwishare

    i just hope this helps the NZ cause and puts the brakes on ACTA.Knowing John Key they will find a way around this by saying “New Zealand is a progressive country BLA BLA BLA…

    But for now…suck on that afact\mpaa,YA POLE SMOKERS (not meaning to be offensive to any “pole smokers” ofcourse)

  • Reasoned Mind

    My apologies, Recton, Avatar is not hugely profitable, we all know this, let me restate to clarify.

    “Avatar is a very good example of creative costs continuing to decline for the kinds of entertainment we want. The money doesn’t need to be recouped from somewhere…”

    I hope that’s clearer. No falsehood. I think it’s also true that in a hypothetical case, had piracy not gutted Avatar’s commercial viability and the movies failed to gross, say, less than $40 or $50 million through sheer lawful infringement, I think it’s likely more movies on the scale of Avatar would be made until we return to paying for the movies we don’t watch again. They can keep making them if we don’t keep paying for them somehow. Y’know?

  • Anonymous

    @Reasoned Mind:
    “There are hundreds of ways to pay for legal product online but piracy continues.”

    Go to some European country. Try to get some content legally. Oops, you can’t. No iTunes, no Hulu, no nothing.
    ‘Hundred ways to pay for legal product’ my ass.

  • Reasoned Mind

    @Reasoned Mind:
    “Go to some European country. Try to get some content legally. Oops, you can’t. No iTunes, no Hulu, no nothing.
    ‘Hundred ways to pay for legal product’ my ass.”

    iTunes and Hulu are two that AREN’T ways for SOME European country. But there are hundreds of other ways! other than your “ass”.

  • Reasoned Mind

    @Anonymous:
    “Go to some European country. Try to get some content legally. Oops, you can’t. No iTunes, no Hulu, no nothing.
    ‘Hundred ways to pay for legal product’ my ass.”

    iTunes and Hulu are two that AREN’T ways for SOME European country. But there are hundreds of other ways! other than your “ass”.

  • Anonymous

    @Reasoned Mind: Go ahead, list them. List legal European services that allow streaming of say Chuck, 24 and similar TV show. I’m waiting…

  • Reasoned Mind

    @Anonymous: For your humor… no LOL

  • neostyles

    @Anonymous: Can I take a wild stab and say… erm… TV for starters.

  • Reasoned Mind

    Sorry Anonymous @151, you are being spoofed. That wasn’t me. Many post here under my name. The wise know who is who.

    When pirates can’t prevail on the issues, they spoof and try to confuse things. It’s kinda like hiding behind privacy laws while you break the law online, creating a very real threat to everyone else’s anonymity while you take only for yourself. Incredibly selfish, like the pirates who advocate using unprotected wifi and framing their innocent neighbors. That’s the “honor” among thieves, so thanks, all this false impersonation just proves the point.

    :-)

  • Anonymous

    @Reasoned Mind: What’s this have to do with humor? I’m asking you to make good on your claim. You apparently can’t. What does this tell everyone? That you’re full of BS.

  • Reasoned Mind

    Again you are being spoofed. Wasn’t me. Hold the impostor accountable to what he/she says.

  • Reasoned Mind

    This is ridiculous. The previous post claiming the other posts as spoof is actually a spoof.

    Obvious spoof is obvious.

  • Anonymous

    No one’s spoofing anyone in here. Your creating these posts to really avoid questions and divert attention, Spoofer.

    Obvious troll is obvious.

  • Pingback: Hollywood pierde importante demanda en Australia | RSS Tecnología

  • Reasoned Mind

    Again you are being spoofed. Wasn’t me. Hold the impostor accountable to what he/she says.

  • Lur

    How can you steal a copyright? =P

  • Anonymous

    @Reasoned Mind: Nice to now have an excuse for every time you need to weasel yourself out of a question, isn’t it?

  • Pingback: Aussie ISP wins landmark case against movie studios » Tower of the North

  • Reasoned Mind

    “Whether they are offering an apple for sale and you take the apple without paying for it….”

    Dam! Where is my Apple?

    Someone downloaded my Apple!

    Where is my Apple?

    Fine! I am going to download your car then!

    I am troooling!

    Trooollliiiiiinng!

    Troooollllllliiiiiinnnnnng!

    TROOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIINNNNNNNG!

  • Cordelia

    Gosh I almost thought Australians were stuck on a mafiaa prison island… Read they were putting a filter on the main cable to Australia. Good to hear that sense prevailed.

  • djc

    Fuck yeah!! This is the right decision!

    “AFACT will have to pay all of iiNet’s substantial legal costs.” <– Now this is Justice!

    A nice big "Fuck Off" to AFACT, BREIN, RIAA, MPAA, and the rest of those assholes that need to STFU!!

  • Pingback: El efecto BUMERANG: Productoras de Cine contra ISP.

  • Sans

    Haha says: “So let’s review this… after failing to sue individual people who can’t afford lawyers and fight back, these guys decide to sue ISPs who have plenty of lawyers and can fight back!
    Who is handling the strategy for these guys?”

    Well, no.
    They didn’t try and fail to sue individual Australians. Based on the court’s ruling, that’s what happens now. Not real sure where you see the humour in that.

    Anyway, either you’re from an ISP or let’s hope you’re not handling our strategy.

    I mean, seriously. WTF are you people on if you’re happy about this ?

    The landmark ruling is that ISPs don’t get sued instead of consumers. Surely mere seconds of consideration could allow you to determine whether (a) you are an ISP or a consumer and (b) whether this makes you happy.

  • Sans

    So nice to hear from the Australian Pirate Party as well. Has such a nicer ring to it than “a geek club started by 3 guys in their basement”.

    What with them not actually being a real political party and all, and who solicit less membership than fringe sporting rights groups and racist organisations.

    The climate change party garnered less support at the last elections than the Shooters Party. Yeah, keep telling yourself you’re relevant guys.

  • certior

    HAHA the MAFIAA got pwned. I just wish my government in the uk had the same wisdom as this judge when it comes to ISPs acting as corporate copyright cops. Circumvention of established legal procedures inevitably favours the copyright industry at the expense of the rights of the citizen.

  • Brudda

    Reasoned Mind,

    Your customers HATE you!

    In case you didn’t understand, I’ll repeat: Your customers HATE you!

    For you and the people you work for, nothing else matters, nothing you do matters, nothing you say matters. Why?

    Because your customers HATE you!

  • Rboy

    The MPAA and RIAA and all their counter parts need to realize 99.9% of claimed losses due to file sharing are bogus. First no one is getting rich sharing files, No one running a torrent site is going to become a google or facebook billionaire or even a millionaire. Never heard of anyone that had big money that was ever busted for file sharing.

    File sharing is no more then a modern version of libraries.

  • Reasoned Mind

    I’m a bus driver. My customers love me.

  • Anonymous

    And why not go after the 50,000 employees that leak the videos in the first place?

  • SilentBob

    i’m so happy i could cry. this decision is more important than any of us realise. fantastic.

    i watched the proceeding of this case with keen interest and waited breathlessly for the judge’s ruling. and then BLAM! Boomerang effect, mofos.

    And always remember, Ignore Trolls.

  • Pingback: Pirate Home Page » Movie Studios Lose Landmark Case Against Aussie ISP

  • 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.