“Bringing a large dose of common sense into the equation…”

Somebody thinking clearly about the internet copyright ‘three strikes, you’re disconnected’ proposals: An Australian judge has ruled that ISP iiNet is not responsible for its customers breaking copyright laws.

(Of course it will be appealed!)

Aussie ISP strikes landmark blow in copyright war

By Pat Pilcher NZ Herald Thursday Feb 4, 2010

Aussie ISP iiNet has won a landmark case over service providers’ responsibilities when it comes to handling copyright-protected material.

The case kicked off in the Australian Federal Court in October, between internet service provider iiNet, and AFACT (the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft).

AFACT accused iiNet of authorising ‘torrent’ downloads by not acting on known copyright infringements by its subscribers.

In what is likely to represent a blow to attempts to crack down on copyright infringing downloads, Judge Cowdroy has ruled that iiNet are not guilty.

… Bringing a large dose of common sense into the equation, Judge Cowdroy stated that iiNet has no control over BitTorrent and cannot be held responsible for the actions of its subscribers. continues

I get as worked up about copyright infringement as anybody else, but it’s crazy to direct sillyness at the ISPs instead of tackling BitTorrent. It’s like blaming the photocopy machine.

These things are going to change.

Share this:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • email
  • Print

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 Comment »

 
  • Peter says:

    Follow up article with interesting background… from Pat Pilcher in the NZ Herald

    What is the legal argument at the heart of the AFACT vs iiNet case?

    Rick Shera: AFACT, on behalf of 34 major film and TV companies, argued that the ISP iiNet, had authorised its customers to infringe copyright in a number of films and TV shows. Because authorising infringement is itself an infringement, AFACT argued that iiNet was also a copyright infringer.

    The real question in the case was whether the fact that iiNet’s customers were file sharing unlicensed copies of films and TV shows over iiNet’s internet connections meant that iiNet had a responsibility to stop them doing so. If it did not do that AFACT said, it had effectively condoned that infringement and was liable itself.

    iiNet argued that by forwarding the numerous allegations of infringement by customers that it received from AFACT, to the Australian Police, it had done all that was required of it and had not authhorised its customers to infringe – therefore, it itself had not infringed.

    Full article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10630103&pnum=0

 

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>