Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Australia Piracy The Courts

Australian ISP Wins Case Against Movie Studios 155

trawg writes "The Australian High Court has just dismissed an appeal by Australian and American media companies against ISP iiNet, in what will hopefully be the final step in an ongoing copyright lawsuit drama. The Court noted that 'iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright.' Ultimately, the court has held that iiNet's inactivity to act on infringement notices didn't imply any sort of authorization of that infringement by their customers. Good news for Australians as a clear line has been drawn that will help ensure ISPs don't have to bear the cost of policing their customers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian ISP Wins Case Against Movie Studios

Comments Filter:
  • Finally (Score:5, Interesting)

    by philmarcracken ( 1412453 ) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @09:26PM (#39741465)
    I'm gladdened that the courts saw the logical fallacy of allowing one corporation legal rights to force another corporation to lose profits through direct cost or degradation of service based on a failure to adapt to market changes.

    While i agree there is value being lost through piracy it just seems the courts were the easier path to take instead of adaptation and new delivery methods. That might require some planning and work after all.
    I'm in 100% agreement with Gabe Newell from Valve that piracy is largely a service problem.

    But since these fellows at the RIAA and the MPAA seem hell bent on using the copyright laws like a club to beat the ISPs and potential customers over the head with in order to get their way, will anything change?
  • Re:Short lived (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cinnaman ( 954100 ) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @09:34PM (#39741531)

    Western governments will not let their populations have a free and open internet without a fight.

  • by gstrickler ( 920733 ) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @09:58PM (#39741711)

    So, iiNet didn't just win, they smacked down just about all of plaintiff's claims, and made them pay all of the defendant's costs?

    That's a big win.

  • Re:The trouble is... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19, 2012 @10:13PM (#39741805)

    Just be fair about it. Artists should be paid for their work, even if they use the *IAA's like loan sharks. Tell your legislator of choice to focus legislation on allowing the artists to ask distributors that they don't have a deal with for a *reasonable* payment per download (ie: about what an artist actually gets in their pocket per iTunes download), and also limit it to only those distribution sites that are making money (advertising, donations, subscriptions, etc.). Then let them go after the distributors that don't pay up. The ones that aren't making any money should be treated as free marketing for the artist.

  • by GoodNewsJimDotCom ( 2244874 ) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @10:45PM (#39741955)
    Is the phone company to blame if someone plays a song over the phone and someone records it on the other end?
  • Re:Great news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by crafty.munchkin ( 1220528 ) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @11:38PM (#39742211)
    I wouldn't have stuck with Netspace for 8 years if they weren't fantastic. It was a terrible shame to see them get so badly stuffed up.

    On leaving them, they sent me a survey to fill out to tell them why I'd left, the link for which didn't work, so I emailed the customer service people back, cc'ing Michael Malone, explaining how as a long term customer of Netspace that it was with regret I was leaving after 8 years as a customer, but in 4 paragraphs exactly how they drove me away.

    The next morning, I got a phone call from a senior customer service person at iiNet, who apologised for everything that happened and gave me an undertaking that iiNet were going to endeavour to make sure what had happened to me didn't happen with their future acquisitions. Whilst it was too late for me as I'd already churned away, I hope that they stuck to their word.
  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @11:54PM (#39742271) Homepage

    The Australian High Court is very different to the US Supreme Court.

    High Court judges are more like the high priests of Australian judiciary. Their professionalism and ego are very much bound to that appointment. Strict accurate literal interpretation of the law is what they believe in and what they adhere to. This often trips up many politicians and of course corporations. None of this sounds like, looks like, could possibly be, politically aligned decisions. Even when politicians have made their way there, upon appointment they have demonstrated strict professionalism.

    Unhappy with their ruling. Rewrite the law so that it fits in with constitution or if that is not possible, attempt to force a referendum to get the constitution changed, so that the law you wants fits in with that. Yeah good luck with that.

    More simple access to referendums (where the whole electorate) votes on a single issue, make stacking the high court kind of mute, they could say no, it gets put in a referendum and the majority of the public say yes, then it's yes. especially on key issues.

  • by Sasayaki ( 1096761 ) on Friday April 20, 2012 @12:27AM (#39742433)

    I'm an Australian author (plug: [] ) who relies exclusively on digital sales and I strongly oppose any such fucking with our legal system.

    Go away, AFACT. Nobody wants you to exist. Not the politicians. Not the voters. Not the readers (listeners/viewers/etc). Not the content creators.


    AFACT serve only the Hollywood industry who is so inept and out of touch with what's going on around them that they senselessly blunder into things like this. They are dicks and their defeat in court -- an utterly humiliating and complete defeat where they had to pay all of iiNet's costs -- makes me cackle with glee.

  • Re:Great news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by skine ( 1524819 ) on Friday April 20, 2012 @02:21AM (#39742943)

    Here's the problem for me personally:

    Where I currently live (in the US), I have three options for internet:

    1) Dial-up.
    2) Satellite.
    3) Time Warner.

    Since I require use of the internet for more than email, 1) is out.

    Since I can't afford $90/month, 2) is out.

    But with 3), the ISP is owned by the copyright holders. That is, the same company that owns New Line, Time Magazine, HBO, TBS, The CW, Warner Bros, Cartoon Network, CNN, DC Comics, Castle Rock Entertainment, and others.

Today is the first day of the rest of your lossage.