TorrentFreak

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.

The copyright case between AFACT, representing the movie industry, and Aussie ISP iiNet is set to conclude today. The Internet Industry Association was disallowed from becoming a friend of the court, and the chief movie industry barrister said that ISPs who refuse to forward infringement notices should get out of the business.

iiNet’s chief barrister argued today that there is insufficient evidence to show that when customers shared movies using BitTorrent, they shared “substantial parts” of said material, an essential requirement for proving infringement. Furthermore, in order to verify AFACT claims, iiNet itself would have to infringe copyright.

iiNet’s chief barrister told the court today that the only proven ‘infringer’ in the case was AFACT’s own investigator, which secured iiNet’s protection under Safe Harbor provisions. He added that the number of claimed infringements were inflated and iiNet had complied fully with privacy aspects of the Telecoms Act.

Continuing with his closing submissions, AFACT’s chief barrister claimed there were contradictions in statements given to the court by iiNet witnesses regarding anti-piracy tracking data. On this basis he asked the judge to disregard their evidence, going on to attack claims that the ISP took “reasonable steps” to deal with piracy.

The case continues between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. As AFACT makes its closing submissions, their chief barrister Tony Bannon has torn into the evidence and credibility of iiNet’s key witnesses, CEO Michael Malone and chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby.

Day thirteen of the trial between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. The ISP’s chief regulatory officer recalled difficulty with terms used by AFACT in their infringement notices and reiterated that the ISP would not forward them without a court order. AFACT submitted a draft ISP code of conduct in respect of dealing with malware.