Copyright Cartel vs iiNet: The verdict is in!
News from AJ - Thursday, 04 February 2010 @ 9:59am
I doubt most readers of AG follow the latest happenings in our legal system. But this is one case most readers definitely know about. The Movie Studio Cartel vs iiNet. The lawsuit is being brought against iiNet by a cartel of 34 copyright holders determined to hold the ISP responsible for the actions of those who use their service. In my opinion, this is like suing Australia Post for someone posting copied DVDs, or the electricity company for supplying the electricity used to burn them.
Well, the verdict is in, iiNet has won. Below are some excerpts of the ruling courtesy of itnews.com.au. "the mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement", "iinet has no control over bittorrent system and not responsible for bittorrent system.","I find that iiNet simply can't be seen as approving infringement". The fact there is worldwide piracy "does not necessitate or compel a finding of authorisation, just because it is felt there is something that must be done." "copyright occured as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet" said Justice Cowdroy
To say this is great news for Internet providers in Australia is an understatement. Of course, I am sure there will be appeals and what not, but a very long running saga is now over. Applicant's must pay all costs. Suck it media cartel!
Discuss in official forum
Latest from Forum
Edit: Or this is a joke quote and I fell for it.
The original it's satirising is [url="http://www.afact.org.au/pressreleases/2010/4-02-2010.html"]here[/url].
WTF? That statement generated some odd images. It makes those employees sound like they are depsarate for money because they need to pay off a loan shark or a drug dealer.
Edit: Or this is a joke quote and I fell for it.
“We will now take the time to review the decision before seeing if we can bribe enough federal politicians to get a law more to our liking.”
what do you think?
WTF? That statement generated some odd images. It makes those employees sound like they are depsarate for money because they need to pay off a loan shark or a drug dealer.
Edit: Or this is a joke quote and I fell for it.
From [url="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html"]the transcript[/url]:
We see what you're doing there, with your shameless attempt to conflate copyright infringement and theft. We see what you're doing there, and we'd like to point out that IT IS BULLSHIT. With respect.
ELSEWHERE: Newstechnica [url="http://newstechnica.com/2010/02/04/afact-v-iinet-statement-in-full-from-the-losing-party/"]translates the AFACT release[/url].
Props for the link to the judgement.
As much as it pains me to say, I entirely agree with your point.
From [url="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html"]the transcript[/url]:
We see what you're doing there, with your shameless attempt to conflate copyright infringement and theft. We see what you're doing there, and we'd like to point out that IT IS BULLSHIT. With respect.
ELSEWHERE: Newstechnica [url="http://newstechnica.com/2010/02/04/afact-v-iinet-statement-in-full-from-the-losing-party/"]translates the AFACT release[/url].
