The long-expected appeal against iiNet has been dismissed in Federal Court today. This is likely to be the final nail in the coffin for ISP-related copyright lawsuits in Australia for a long time, creating a legal precedent for future court proceedings. However, the ruling wasn’t completely unanimous. According to various sources, one dissenting judge ruled in favour of the appeal and awarded the case to AFACT.
A press statement is expected shortly. We’ll update this story as soon as the information is released.
Update #1: The official court ruling is now available for all to read online. If you don’t have time to read the entire ruling (yes, it’s novel-size), we encourage you take a look at section 588, which illustrates an important part of why the ruling was in favour of iiNet:
His Honour also noted that acts of copyright infringement are necessarily acts of one or more persons. A computer can be used to commit an infringement of copyright but the act of infringement must be that of the person who uses the computer in an infringing way.
Update #2:
iiNet have just released a statement, saying they feel vindicated and pleased with the decision. iiNet boss Michael Malone had this to say about today’s judgement:
“Today’s judgment again demonstrates that the allegations against us have been proven to be unfounded.”
iiNet drew attention to the success of the company’s fledgling PayTV service, FetchTV, which helped underscore the important value of partnering with the same entertainment firms in the online space. iiNet contends that offering users a legitimate place to access content is more important than playing net nanny to individual users.
By popular request, this might be slightly relevant in times like this:
Jon
Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 2:42 PMWoot!
Leonard Low
Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 2:50 PMIt is almost certain that AFACT will appeal this decision in the High Court. It is only a win there that can guarantee iiNet the final, judicial precedent we are all hoping for.
Choc
Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 3:06 PMTo appeal to the high court they have to prove an error in judgement was made at the lower court
can they prove it, probably not.
To obtain special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, it is necessary to establish not only an error in the lower court’s judgment, but also some special feature of the case which warrants the High Court’s attention.
There is no exhaustive list or comprehensive definition of what is ‘special’. That is largely to be gleaned from the High Court’s reasons for refusing special leave.
Leonard Low
Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 4:27 PM@Choc: read the ruling. Even though we may agree with today’s outcome, I’m sure you will find findings of fact that you disagree with, which could be construed “errors of judgment”. Heck, even the judges within the case disagreed with each other on findings of fact – it would be relatively easy for a competent lawyer to find grounds for an appeal to the High Court; and the Film industry has all the money to back it. :p
As for some “special feature” of the case… the mere fact that this is a widely reported ruling that sets significant legal precedent is probably all the reason required to go to the High Court. :p It’s not like every case in the Federal Court requires a press conference now, is it?
Sam Cook
Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 3:08 PMWoo, now I’ll have to torrent a copy of Queen’s We Are The Champions to celebrate.
Seriously though, arguing that ISPs are responsible for facilitating piracy by providing services and not monitoring usage; is like acusing a car manufacturer of holding responsibility if someone decides they want to mow down a few people on George Street in their Ford Territory one day.
The action started by AFACT in the first place was a lazy attempt at trying to hold a smaller number of parties responsible for a highly numerous volume of offenses, committed by a similarly highly numerous number of offenders.
Roland
Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 3:36 PMWell said Sam :)
Sam Cook
Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 4:40 PMI’d just like to note, I made the comment about We Are The Champions before Daniel added the youtube video in the update. Cheers for the kudos though, Dan! :D
Daniel Long
Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 4:56 PMI’m in a triumphant mood this afternoon Sam. And your welcome.
Leonard Low
Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 3:53 PMAlso: I have read through the judgment, and frankly, the decision was on a knife edge. The judgment was 2:1 (on dissenting judge) and both judges who ruled to dismiss the appeal conceded significant principles of law, despite ruling in favour of iiNet. The victory is sweet, but somewhat Pyrrhic, I am afraid.
Leonard Low
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 12:08 PMRelevant supporting articles, who agree with me that this is a “hollow victory” for iiNet: :(
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/iinets-hollow-victory-over-hollywood-20110225-1b7qa.html
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-pirate-ruling-may-force-isps-to-cut-off-cheats-20110301-1bcr4.html
From the latter article, citing the former: “In a recent opinion piece on this website, David Brennan, an associate professor at Melbourne University, said the film companies may consider their lost appeal a win on its own “and if so there will not be a further appeal to the High Court”"