iiNet wins piracy court case

Essential linkage: Movie industry fat-cats: 0 iiNet: 1. Go the little guy!

Well, the verdict's out: iiNet, the ISP at the center of a landmark piracy courtcase, has come out on top.

As Brett Winterford from our sister site ITnews reports here, it has been ruled that iiNet has not supported piracy, but merely offered an internet service. What's more, the presiding judge - Justice Cowdry - has ruled that the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) must pay iiNet's court costs.

This is great news, as Justice Cowdroy went on to say that "mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement". This effectively separates ISPs from the acts of their users.

Chalk one up for reason.

Behind the scenes with Mass Effect 3! GTX 560 VGA round-up! Essential Skyrim tweaks to improve your game! Plus reviews, news, hardware, more games, and easy to following modding guides for PC builders. ON SALE NOW!

Ads by Google

22 Comments

orcone Feb 4, 2010 10:32 AM	well maybe if iinet didnt steal internets they wouldnt be courted stop breking the law craminals you lose
Jonsey301 Feb 4, 2010 10:43 AM	good on justice cowdroy.
Krispy89 Feb 4, 2010 10:50 AM	I bet they'll try to get BitTorrent in their sights next.
majestic975 Feb 4, 2010 10:59 AM	Finally some common sense. Same as if someone hits someone with their car, the car maker cant be held responsible!!
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. Feb 4, 2010 11:09 AM	Isn't it obvious? The transmission lines are at fault! It's clear as day!
Adrianvh Feb 4, 2010 11:16 AM	@krispy89, they already have mate, a few have gone already eg Nova etc It was failry clear from the outset this case was a no-go. I'm really happy the judge awarded costs, it will say to others thinking of throwing their weight around to think twice. Mind you I think the next step will be for them to go after individuals next. Think about the case in the US where a woman was fined 50k+ for sharing a dozen or so songs.
studor Feb 4, 2010 11:32 AM	Can someone translate orcone's post? I have no idea what he is trying to say.
g0t.w00t? Feb 4, 2010 12:00 PM	maybe Torrent sites could use this. They don't host the files, therefore are not responsible for the individual things people are torrenting? maybe? All they are doing is providing a service after all, not hosting illegal files ;)
Jonsey301 Feb 4, 2010 12:09 PM	@got.w00t I think that is the argument they have been using but in some courts it hasn't been working
nukejockey Feb 4, 2010 12:15 PM	Adrianvh, I think he was talking about the actual program (the original bit torrent) not the web sites, but I may be wrong. Anyway, this is good news.
drago13666 Feb 4, 2010 1:37 PM	Adrianvh one of the reasons the groups try to go after ispps and torrent sites is because its cheaper and easier for them, they dont' profit from charging individuals.
mark84 Feb 4, 2010 2:12 PM	Here's the summary text of the verdict http://www.itnews.com.au/News/166365,afact-v-iinet-the-judgement-in-full.aspx Movie/film industry really should be trying to work WITH the ISPs, not against them. I'd seriously consider going with an ISP where I could download any movie/film/tv show from a "free-zone" with a fixed extra $$ amount on the monthly ISP bill.
qwakqwak Feb 4, 2010 4:43 PM	lol @ orcone....damn craminals
MagnumXY Feb 4, 2010 6:52 PM	There will still be an appeal from AFACT, but a good start against the Dark Side nonetheless.
anamika Feb 4, 2010 11:06 PM	Send flowers and gifts to Singapore through our website and leave a lasting memory at the celebrations of your loved ones. Convey your deepest appreciation for your dear ones by delivering the right flowers and gifts for the right occasion. Please visit: www.singaporeflowershop.com
discoInferno Feb 4, 2010 11:50 PM	Hoorah for common sense.
Electr0 Feb 5, 2010 2:30 AM	Hoorah for flowers to Singapore >.> WTF?
HeavyLancer Feb 5, 2010 8:42 AM	inb4 appeal. AFACT will try to stick iiNet in court for as long as possible.
mattnelson Feb 5, 2010 9:15 AM	drago: But if they can't get any joy from taking ISPs to court, they'll reason that they have no choice but to go after individuals.
Hasimir Feb 7, 2010 9:15 PM	It's worth having a look at the full verdict by Justice Cowdroy, in particular in relation to the evidence submitted by DnetTec. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html This bit in section 96 is interesting: "DtecNet investigated 190 Australian ISPs in relation to four different types of file-sharing protocols, including BitTorrent. It then narrowed its investigations to the BitTorrent protocol and targeted four Australian ISPs; namely Optus, Internode, Exetel and the respondent. It was not explained why these particular four ISPs were selected." As well as the description of the AFACT notices and the attempts by AFACT to try and pass itself off as a semi- or quasi-statutory body in order to force the hand of a targetted ISP to shut down customers using BitTorrent (or other targetted protocols).
SUlrich Feb 12, 2010 12:58 PM	About bloody time! Congratulations to Justice Cowdroy for some long overdue commonsense; and a HUGE raspberry to AFACT, Village Roadwhow and all the other morons involved. As someone else pointed out, you can't blame VicRoads if some lowlife steals you car and gets away down a local street.
keza Feb 14, 2010 9:27 PM	ah copyright and piracy the people who enforce it usually were the pathetic nerds that everyone bet the crap out of at school, they never changed from the fagots they were.

Comments have been disabled on this article.

Latest Competitions

Thermaltake kicks off your gaming year with a BANG
Thermaltake has started off the new year with a bang by giving away a Tt eSport Theron Laser mouse to not one or two, but TWENTY lucky Atomicans!

Editor's Choice

Area 53

Atomic Magazine

Issue: 133 | February, 2012

Atomic is a magazine aimed squarely at computer enthusiasts, gamers, and serious PC upgraders.

Every month we bring you the latest reviews of new technology and PC components, in depth features on everything from overclocking to console hacking, and gaming previews and interviews.

What's in this issue?