Finally, there’s a little bit of good news for internet users – iiNet has successfully defended itself against the AFACT lawsuit, with the court ruling in the ISPs favour. UPDATED: With official statement from iiNet.
The court case, which saw the world’s biggest studios claim iiNet was encouraging illegal piracy by not stopping people who were doing it, lasted eight weeks and was full of mystery and intrigue. Or maybe it was boring court stuff, I can’t remember. But in any case, the judge handed down his verdict this morning, and the verdict was in favour of the ISP.
There are going to be a heap of official comments to come later this morning, but it’s probably a pretty safe bet that AFACT will appeal. As it stands, they’ve been ordered to pay iiNet’s court costs, which seems like a fairly minor punishment for being stupid…
iiNet’s statement:
Federal Court Judgment – Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNet Ltd
4 February 2010: iiNet welcomes the Federal Court’s judgment.
We have never supported or encouraged breaches of the law, including infringement of the Copy Right Act of the Telecommunications Act. Today’s judgment is a vindication of that and the allegations against us have been proven to be unfounded.
iiNet has always been, and will continue to be, a good corporate citizen and an even better copyright citizen.
From our perspective today marks the end of the matter and we will continue get on with the business. We will continue to provide Australians with the access to fast and cheap broadband with innovative new services and products.
While this case has been important, not just for iiNet, but the entire internet industry, it has not distracted us from our core business.
Notably while this case unfolded:
· we launched our very successful BoB product, providing customers with the ultimate all-in-one plug and play internet and phone service;
· continued to grow our customers and revenue
· and signed content agreements with a wide range of providers, including Xbox, NineMSN, TiVO, Bloomberg, the Sydney Film Festival, Village Roadshow Films and many othersSo it has been business as usual for us and with the case now behind us we look forward to continuing to do what we do best – delivering innovative content and products and great customer service.
And run Australia’s most innovative and successful internet company.
In relation to copyright holders, we conclude by again saying we do not, and never have supported, encouraged or authorised illegal sharing or downloading of files in breach of the copyright laws.
We are eager to engage with the film industry and copyright holders to make this material legitimately available.
Finally, we thank all those who have support us through this process, the iiNet staff, our loyal customers and investors, the internet industry and others and notably our legal team who worked tirelessly to achieve this important result today.
Peter Francis
February 4, 2010 at 10:38 AM
As an Ozemail customer since 1995 good on you iinet. They are a service provider not a censor, they do the service provision better that any other ISP, and they show that they only have their customers best interest at hand. They don’t need to be diverted from that task by doing AFACT’s job for them
Report PermalinkMichael
February 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Finally a fair ruling! That just made my day.
Report PermalinkTrent Queen
February 4, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Excellent News!!
Report PermalinkIduo
February 4, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Stupid AFACT. Why didn’t they just bring Google to the court for providing the search engine to find the pirated materials at the first place? Or maybe the computer manufacturers for allowing the users to use the computer to produce, distribute, or download the pirated materials?
Report PermalinkTodd
February 4, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Never thought I would see that headline! Lets hope that the feeling carries through the government and they realise they cannot censor the internet either!
Report PermalinkChumplunt
February 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM
So a drunk-driver kills a kid one night. Are they going to sue the car company for making the car in the first place, or the pub for serving drinks, or the Beverage maker for brewing alcoholic drinks in the first place. Cause we all know it wasn’t the drivers fault!
Report PermalinkGraham
February 4, 2010 at 11:59 AM
actually yes they are going to sue the pub, its been done before on more than one occasion at least in the USA anyway, unsure what the outcomes have been. The difference with pubs is that they have a responsibility to not serve patrons who are already drunk… but in reality thats a farce as its impossible to really tell without a breath test every time they order, then someone else could be ordering for them anyway.
Report Permalinkmr-crash
February 4, 2010 at 12:25 PM
There’s cases in Aus here Graham, where what you’ve described has happened. The duty not to serve an intoxicated patron isn’t analogous to a duty not to let them drive afterwards.
The case that describes this (if you’re interested) is C.A.L. No 14 Pty Ltd v Scott – which comes from Tasmania originally.
There is still a provision for duty under “exceptional” circumstances, but if you have a read, these have to be pretty damn exceptional.
As to the iinet case, “authorisation” liability is pretty much analogous to the US concept of “vicarious” liability. This case is interesting, but in reality, we should have always been more worried about the comments Conroy has made about it, which suggest he’ll be wanting to legislate a positive duty to stop people from engaging in whatever conduct he deems isn’t appropriate. It would fit nicely with the material pushed through the senate the other day, which provides extended police powers to intercept digital communications.
The grounds on which the companies associated with AFACT can appeal this look (initially) pretty limited too, which is nice, though I wouldn’t be surprised still if they try for an appeal before either the full federal court or perhaps the high court still.
Also, I’m not a lawyer etc. etc. Take this only as the ramblings of an internet random ;)
Report PermalinkEvan
February 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Didnt they just change the law so that it is a persons own responsiblity and not that of the supplier.
Report PermalinkMattias
February 4, 2010 at 11:50 AM
So a author of a few books finds out that someone photocopies his book and gives it to his friends friends for free, do you sue the maker of the photocopier?
Report Permalinkcocobananas
March 29, 2010 at 9:40 PM
Yeah, have a look at NSW University v Moorhouse
Report PermalinkAlex Cliffe
February 4, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Finally, an Australian internet decision that that hasn’t resulted in us losing more of our freedom. To be honest I had already written this off, I felt sure that they would rule in favour of the studios.
Report PermalinkIt is hugely reassuring to see that not everyone in this country is a flaming idiot.
Cam
February 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM
I’m glad to see sanity prevailed.
Report PermalinkN
February 4, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Justice has been served! This is the best possible outcome for everyone’s ISPs.
How long before AFACT appeal the decision though?
Report PermalinkKeep fighting the good fight, iiNet.
steve
February 4, 2010 at 12:45 PM
YAY – now i can pirate some more…
Aargghh!
Report Permalinkstopthatcrazygoat
February 4, 2010 at 1:42 PM
So a Pope shits in the woods and… ah stuff it! I terrible at analogies!
Report PermalinkMichael
February 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Don’t get too excited. They’ll just enact ‘plan b’ and buy off some politicians.
Report PermalinkThePengwin
February 4, 2010 at 3:16 PM
In other news, iiNet is now changing their name to AyeAyeNet. :P
Report PermalinkSeraph
February 4, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Now to celebrate iiNet should offer 24 hours of unmetered cap like they did over Christmas, that’d really stick it up AFACT.
Report PermalinkIan Brown
February 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM
As far as customer service goes, iiNet are by far the best company I’ve ever dealt with – it freakin blew my mind. They totally deserve this victory.
Report PermalinkWozzzaaa
February 5, 2010 at 12:14 AM
Look they went crying to Komisar Konroy like a bunch of Emo’s….
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/166371,afact-demands-government-curb-online-piracy.aspx
Report Permalinkjacob
February 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Great news, unfortunately it’s only temporary, when the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) comes into force (which Australia and 13 other countries are in secret negotiations with) all isp’s will be held accountable for allowing pirated content to flow through their networks.
Report PermalinkAshley Bartlett
February 5, 2010 at 10:43 PM
I don’t think this ruling is going to change much. The people with the money, and the interest, are still going to try and protect their interest.
The internet is very different, and still quite young. Most corporate companies were never prepared for this, and from my own point of view (as a young adult male) I can’t see people changing their ways too easily and thinking outside the box. These people feel threatened so they will fight. Pride, sadly, is a very dangerous thing.
Report PermalinkDaniel
February 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Wait… they signed a deal with roadshow to include them in their freezone (i’m assuming), all while being involved in an ugly copyright court case with them?
Shit, i understand business is business, but what happened to principles? Didn’t iinet think for a second “no, F YOU! you’re taking us to court, like we’re gonna give you money”.
Report PermalinkMind you, the reimbursement of court fees probably paid for that anyway, but still, there was no guaranteed outcome!